Nunavut judge rules man charged four years ago must go to trial

A Sanikiluaq man facing sex charges laid in 2013 must still go to trial and the delays in the case, given the challenges of delivering justice in Nunavut, are not unreasonable, Nunavut Justice Paul Bychok ruled Nov. 3. (FILE PHOTO)

A Nunavut judge has denied an application from a man accused of 40-year-old sex crimes who asked the court to throw out his charges, laid more than four years ago, because of “unreasonable” delays.

In making his decision, Justice Paul Bychok suggested Nov. 3 that his judgment could set a precedent for how Nunavut’s courts deal with prolonged criminal processes.

Lukasie Anugaa faces charges of rape and indecent assault, offences that existed under an older version of the Criminal Code of Canada that was in force in 1977 and 1978 when the crimes were alleged to have occurred in Sanikiluaq.

Although Anugaa wasn’t charged until 2013, under Canadian law, any criminal act must be tried under the laws in force at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed.

Bychok said in open court that the issues raised by Anugaa’s charges and subsequent application are “very important for the way we deliver justice to Nunavummiut.”

Anugaa petitioned the court in August to throw out his case after two mistrials, citing time limits imposed by the 2016 Supreme Court of Canada decision, R. v. Jordan.

That decision established a 30-month time limit, during which indictable charges must reach trial in a superior court before delays become “unreasonable.”

“Five judges of the Supreme Court of Canada surprised the country during the summer of 2016 when it decided the Queen versus Jordan,” Bychok said.

“Without warning, in a five-to-four split-decision, the Supreme Court changed the way we interpret and apply section 11(b) of the [Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms],” he said.

“The result is a one-size-fits-all national approach concerning pretrial delay.”

But Bychok said that national approach does not take Nunavut’s special circumstances into account.

“As I have said before, that approach [with R. v. Jordan] does not account for the exceptional challenges of delivering justice to Nunavummiut,” he said

And Bychok stressed that court delays, as defined in R. v. Jordan, can be acceptable if they are “reasonably understandable” or “unavoidable.”

Bychok said that although 54 months have passed between the laying of the charges and the scheduled start of his latest trial, “the delay, in the circumstances of this case, has been reasonable.”

Bychok said he “intends to say much more” when he releases a written version of his decision in about a month.

As of July 2017, Nunavut has seen applications for four stays related to court delays and the time limitations outlined in R. v. Jordan, according to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.

Two of those applications were dismissed, while one was granted. Another application was still pending as of July 2017.

That’s comparatively low compared to the number of “Jordan applications” in other jurisdictions, such as Ontario, which has had 356 applications as of April 2017.

Anugaa’s trial will go ahead Jan. 18 at the Nunavut Court of Justice in Iqaluit, Bychok ruled.

Bychok also waived Anugaa’s request that the trial take place in his hometown of Sanikiluaq, saying that in the “interests of justice” the trial should be held in a different community.

“The accused at one point also went on local radio station and he spoke about the case publically,” Bychok said, after Anugaa’s second mistrial.

“Mr. Anugaa is entitled to a jury of his peers, but at law, he is not entitled to a jury of his neighbors,” he said.

Anugaa did not attend court that day, but was represented by his lawyer.