R v Ovided

R. v. Ovided

91 O.R. (3d) 593
Ontario Court of Justice — Libman J. | July 9, 2008

Background

Four appellants were convicted of minor provincial offences: Ben-Ahmed Fadhaloui Ovided (failing to stop for a school bus), Delwar Howlader (disobeying a stop sign), Bagher Pouramezani (speeding), and 1363437 Ontario Ltd. (selling tobacco to a minor). All four filed appeals and ordered trial transcripts, paying the required $25 deposits. What happened next was a bureaucratic nightmare that would stretch for years.

Court Support Services ignored every request for updates. Ovided sent four "urgent" faxes over 16 months — all unanswered. Howlader sent six letters over two years — complete silence. The appellants were forced to bring motions for directions just to get the appeal court's help in obtaining basic trial records. Even when Justice Shamai specifically ordered Court Support Services to respond and expedite the transcripts, they were ignored.

Issues

1. Whether inordinate delays in producing trial transcripts violate Charter rights under section 7
2. Whether a stay of proceedings was the appropriate remedy
3. Whether costs should be awarded against the Crown

The Transcript Debacle

The delays were staggering: 15.5 months, 26 months, 27 months, and in one case the transcript still hadn't been produced at all. These were not complex documents — each transcript was fewer than ten pages. A letter from Court Support Services revealed this wasn't an aberration: they told another lawyer that "the average waiting period for transcripts required for appeal purposes is approximately 24 to 30 months."

Justice Libman found that while Part I POA appeals don't require mandatory transcripts, they are "essential in many such appeals" and constitute "the staple of the practice of appeals." The court noted that equivalent delays in producing appeal court transcripts took only weeks, proving the delays were unjustifiable. The complete non-response to inquiries showed "institutional indifference to the rights of those who have been convicted."

Charter Violation and Abuse of Process

The court found the delays violated section 7 Charter rights to fundamental justice and constituted an abuse of process. While section 11(b) delay rights don't apply post-conviction, section 7 protects against delays that affect trial fairness. The judge emphasized that appellants were given 15 days to decide on trial, 15 days to file an appeal, then forced to wait up to 27 months just to get the basic record needed to argue their case.

This violated the "community's sense of fair play and decency." The proceedings had become "oppressive or vexatious," creating barriers to access to justice and potentially forcing some appellants to abandon legitimate appeals simply due to bureaucratic incompetence.

Key Takeaway

Courts will not tolerate systematic delays that make the right of appeal meaningless, even in minor provincial offences cases.

If you're facing unreasonable delays in getting transcripts or other essential documents for your appeal, document every request and non-response. The system's failure to provide basic services can itself become grounds for Charter relief, including stays and cost orders.