R v Andrade (Leave to Appeal)

R v Andrade (Leave to Appeal)

Ont. C.A., M40597 (November 24, 2011)
Court of Appeal for Ontario — Cronk J.A. (in Chambers) | November 24, 2011

Background

Isidro Andrade's Part I Provincial Offences Act charges were stayed on the ground that the time to trial breached section 11(b) of the Charter. The Crown, on the relation of the City of Toronto, sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal under section 139 of the POA. The motion was heard alongside a companion motion on identical issues, R. v. Richard Hariraj (file M40611).

Issues

1. Should the Crown get leave to appeal a s. 11(b) stay of Part I POA charges?
2. Do guidelines for intake and institutional delay in POA prosecutions raise a question of law of sufficient significance to warrant leave?

The Court's Decision

Cronk J.A. allowed the motion for leave to appeal in a single-sentence endorsement, "in accordance with the reasons provided in the companion motion, M40611, in R. v. Richard Hariraj, released contemporaneously with this endorsement." The substantive analysis — that the issues concern appropriate guidelines for reasonable intake and institutional delay under s. 11(b) in light of R. v. Morin and R. v. Omarzadah, and are questions of law of province-wide significance — is set out in Hariraj, not here.

Key Takeaway

This is the companion endorsement; read R v Hariraj, 2011 ONCA 739 for the reasoning.

Andrade and Hariraj were argued together and decided together on the same day. This endorsement records only the result for Andrade. If you are researching s. 11(b) delay in Part I POA prosecutions, the case you want is R. v. Hariraj, 2011 ONCA 739.