Citing delays, judge tosses sex charges against Nunavut man

A Cape Dorset man charged with four sex offences he is alleged to have committed as a youth has seen his charges stayed, after a Nunavut judge found that, under new trial deadline rules set by the Supreme Court of Canada last July, lawyers took too much time to resolve his case. (FILE PHOTO)

As a result of the Supreme Court of Canada’s R. v. Jordan decision of last July, a Nunavut judge has thrown out four historic sex charges against a Cape Dorset man after finding lawyers took too much time to resolve the matter in court.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s Jordan decision, which is sending shock waves through courts across Canada, sets new deadlines for when accused persons must be brought to trial.

The Supreme Court decision said simple summary conviction matters must be resolved within 18 months, while indictable matters must be resolved within 30 months.

The Supreme Court “addressed what it viewed as a culture of delay and complacency in getting matters to trial,” Justice Susan Cooper said in her judgment.

Cooper’s judgment involves a Cape Dorset man who was charged after a male complainant in custody outside Nunavut alleged in 2012 that he was sexually abused in the 1980s and 1990s.

The man, who was under 18 when the sexual abuse is alleged to have occurred, was charged as a youth offender in June 2014.

But the arrest warrant wasn’t executed until more than three months later, Cooper said.

The accused was scheduled to appear in court in February 2015 and again in March 2015, but he was not served with a summons compelling him to attend either court date, Cooper said.

Between March 2015, when the accused finally appeared in court, and September 2015, the matter was kicked back and forth between the Cape Dorset circuit court and Iqaluit.

Then, in September 2015, the court discovered an oversight by the defence lawyer and the Crown.

It turned out that for more than a year, both sides had been preparing for a preliminary hearing before trial, after the accused had entered pleas of not guilty.

But there are no preliminary hearings in youth matters, Cooper said.

In October 2015, defence lawyer Shannon O’Connor filed an application to stay proceedings because of all the delays.

That application took an extra 12 months, putting the total waiting time at 29 months—well above the standard set by the Supreme Court.

Between November 2015 and July 2016, the court heard arguments on four separate occasions on the application.

“The delay application itself took an inordinate amount of time to argue,” Cooper said.

Ironically, it was the time required to hear the delay application that pushed the case past the 18-month limit, Cooper said in the judgment.

Those delays also include nine months between the time the court issued an arrest warrant for the man in June 2014 and his first court appearance, Cooper said her judgment.

“The length of time this matter has been before the court is unreasonable given the straightforward nature of the matter,” Cooper said.

“It is the type of delay which reflects poorly on the administration of justice,” she said, and then stayed court proceedings against the accused.

A stay of charges means the charges are effectively dropped, but they can legally be brought back within a year.

Cooper attributed at least some of the delay to the shortage of judges in Nunavut.

“The shortage of judges in this court sometimes results in decisions taking longer to issue than is desirable,” she said.

The identity of the accused may not be published or broadcast, because he was charged under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.