R v Korzh

R. v. Korzh

2014 ONCJ 588
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice J.M. Copeland | October 14, 2014

Background

Natalia Korzh was facing criminal charges and had filed an application under section 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, claiming unreasonable delay. The application was properly scheduled with trial dates set for December 16, 2014 and January 2, 2015. Defence counsel filed their materials in accordance with the court rules on September 11, 2014, giving the Crown over a month to prepare their response.

The Crown's response was due well in advance under the court rules, but Crown counsel didn't serve and file their response materials until the morning of the hearing — October 14, 2014. When asked to explain this serious breach of court rules, the Crown simply said they couldn't find the file and had scheduling issues.

Issues

1. What remedy should be granted when the Crown fails to comply with court rules for responding to applications?
2. Should the court proceed with the application despite the Crown's non-compliance, or adjourn the proceedings?

The Court Rules Violation

Justice Copeland was not impressed with the Crown's casual approach to court deadlines. The court rules require substantive responses to applications, with detailed factual and legal arguments. Under Section 3.1, applicants must serve their materials at least 30 days before the hearing, and respondents must file their response at least 15 days prior. These aren't suggestions — they're mandatory requirements designed to ensure fair and efficient proceedings.

The defence proposed two remedies: either hear the application without allowing the Crown to cross-examine or call evidence, or adjourn the trial dates to give proper time for the application to be heard fairly. The Crown argued the application wasn't complex and they should be able to proceed, but offered no valid explanation for their month-long delay in preparing a response.

The Court's Decision

Justice Copeland ruled that some remedy was necessary for the Crown's rule violation, focusing on two key concerns: fairness to the accused and efficient use of court resources. The judge noted that proceeding without proper Crown preparation would create an incomplete record for deciding the Charter application. More importantly, the late filing wasted precious court time that could have been used to hear the application on its merits.

The court adjourned both the Charter application and the trial dates, but preserved the defence's right to bring the application again or seek other Charter remedies like costs. This sent a clear message that court rules exist for a reason and professional obligations cannot be ignored without consequences.

Key Takeaway

Court rules aren't optional — they apply equally to Crown prosecutors and defence lawyers, and violations have real consequences.

If you're facing a prosecution where the Crown isn't following proper procedures or deadlines, don't assume it's no big deal. Courts take rule compliance seriously, and procedural failures can result in adjournments, costs awards, or even stronger remedies depending on the circumstances.