Jeff's Case — Drive Over 80 — Withdrawn

Between
Her Majesty the Queen, and
Jeff S.

[2003] O.J. No. 2684

Ontario Court of Justice
Oshawa, Ontario
Judge Edmondson

Adjournment Denied:  23 June 2003
(7 paras.)

¶ 1     EDMONDSON J. (orally):  There can be no fault I think ascribed to the Crown office in its dealing with this situation. Clearly the Crown office has responded with alacrity to the news which it received on the 29th of May that the witness was unavailable. The unavailability of the witness appears to have been obtained as a result of the witness having made some travel arrangements which will see the witness out of the country on the scheduled trial date of July 16th next.

¶ 2     The trial date was set on a date when the Ontario Provincial Police scheduling officer appears not to have been in the Court. That, I think is a factor which will require increased vigilance on the part of the O.P.P. officers involved. Both the scheduling officer, who presumably must have received some notification of this scheduled trial date and the witness officer, him or herself. It appears from the affidavit materials filed, that the witness officer may have received some notification of a more timely nature but did not pay sufficient attention to it until we are at this proximate date for trial.

¶ 3     With respect to the issue of delay, the delay in any trial date between the scheduled trial date and the next one that could be scheduled, is a delay which would clearly be ascribable to the Crown. How much of the delay leading to the setting of the presently scheduled trial date on November 20th, 2002 is ascribable to the Crown, may be a matter which would be received to be examined in much of the adjournments prior to the set date appear to have been in the usual nature of the scheduling of these matters following first appearance by the accused in Court.

¶ 4     Nevertheless, the Court is well aware that in the usual course, trials are now being set some nine or ten months into the future. Even if an expedited trial were set, it would probably not be possible to have such a trial in anything less than a few weeks or few months at best. That might well put the total time from the original set date to any new trial date beyond the normal range appropriate for Askov.

¶ 5     What I think is the most disturbing aspect of the matter here however, is not the element of delay, although I have considered it, but the failure at two levels within the O.P.P. to examine what was occurring. First, no apparent address was given to the fact that a trial date had been set in the absence of the scheduling officer and secondly, the scheduled officer (the proposed witness) appears to have, for whatever reasons, neglected to pay attention to what was occurring and to keep him or herself informed of what was occurring in respect to the ongoing case.

¶ 6     In these circumstances, I consider that neglect has been shown to exist and that notwithstanding the public's interest in the conduct of trials and the prosecution criminal allegations, this is not a case in which the discretion of the Court should be granted. The application to adjourn is denied and the trial date presently scheduled remains.

¶ 7     MR. PENNEY:  Thank you, Your Honour.

BACK TO JEFF'S CASE