In the matter of R. v. N.T. counsel Natalia Pawlowski brought an application under section 11B of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking a stay of proceedings after substantial delay in having Mr. T’s matter heard before the court within a Charter compliant timeline. Upon receiving counsel’s materials, the Crown attorney withdrew Mr. T’s charges.
Mr. T. was charged with one count of sexual assault, stemming from allegations where no witnesses other than the complainant were presented, and where there was a substantial delay in the initial report of the complainant’s charges to police, occurring only after she was evicted from one of Mr. T’s properties. Mr. T adamantly denied the allegations, and provided exculpatory evidence to police. He was nonetheless charged, with his matter intended to proceed to trial.
Mr. T, prior to retaining counsel, proceeded as a self-represented accused, and experienced significant difficulties with the Crown providing him access to all of his disclosure and scheduling timely meetings with him to discuss his matter. Mr. T completed numerous pre-trials before Judges without having seen the video statement of the complainant, as the Crown would not give him access to it; essentially proceeding blindly throughout the system.
From the moment that Mr. T reached out to counsel, she focused her efforts on addressing his matter in an extremely efficient way, ensuring that no delay could be attributed to Mr. T, and ensuring that all continued delay in the matter was being attributed to the Crown. Counsel obtained and reviewed all disclosure, held pre-trial meetings with the Crown, held a judicial pre-trial, and scheduled the matter down for trial in just a few short weeks.
After Mr. T’s trial was scheduled, counsel informed the Crown about the intention to raise the issue of delay, and immediately filed very strong written materials with the court, complete with a full record of court transcripts, notes from each conversation between herself and the Crown, and a copy of all scheduling communications, which clearly showed counsel prioritizing the matter while the court remained unavailable. These extensive supporting documents established a clear pattern of delay caused by the Crown in this matter, and resulted in the Crown’s office withdrawing the charges before the application could even be argued in court.
This represents a very significant success for Mr. T, who not only denied all allegations throughout the entirety of the legal proceedings, but who was also subjected to substantial delay beyond his own control. This approach ultimately let Mr. T have his life back without the additional stress of a trial.