|
Criminal - Adjournment. R. v. J.W.
In R. v. J.W. (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal considered a criminal adjournment issue, here grounded on a miscarriage of justice argument:[5] There is a very high bar to establish a miscarriage of justice because of alleged trial unfairness. The threshold that the appellant has to meet was set out as follows by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Kahsai, 2023 SCC 20, 483 D.L.R. (4th) 199, at para. 67:To succeed on this appeal, [the appellant] must show that the amicus appointment in his trial created an irregularity so severe that it rendered the trial unfair in fact or in appearance. He will establish a miscarriage of justice if the gravity of the irregularity would create such a serious appearance of unfairness it would shake the public confidence in the administration of justice. This analysis is conducted from the perspective of a reasonable and objective person, having regard for the circumstances of the trial. It must also acknowledge that while the accused is entitled to a fair trial, they are not entitled to a perfect trial, and “it is inevitable that minor irregularities will occur from time to time”. [Citations omitted.] Analysis
[6] The appellant has not met the high bar to establish a miscarriage of justice.
[7] First, we are not persuaded that the case management judge exercised his discretion unreasonably or unfairly by refusing to adjourn the trial in all the circumstances of this case. The case management judge had presided over the judicial pre-trial and was aware of all relevant circumstances including the consequences of an adjournment. These circumstances included that this was a serious offence, the appellant wanted a lawyer, there were limitations of the court resources, there were numerous witnesses, this was the appellant’s second requested adjournment, and there were some concerns that the appellant had not always attended court.
[8] As he was required to do, the case management judge balanced the appellant’s fair trial interests and the public interest in the timely and efficient administration of justice by having the trial take place in a timely manner. We see no unfairness or appearance of unfairness nor that the appellant was deprived of a fair trial. The appellant was on notice for several months that he may have to represent himself with the assistance of amicus and s. 486.3 counsel if he did not have his own lawyer. . Davis v. Ng
In Davis v. Ng (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the discretionary nature of adjournments, here in a criminal context:[3] The decision whether or not to grant an adjournment is a highly discretionary one which is entitled to deference from this court: Martin v. Sansome, 2014 ONCA 14, 118 O.R. (3d) 522, at para. 28. .... . R. v. Budimirovic
In R. v. Budimirovic (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered an adjournment decision, here in a criminal case:[28] The decision to grant an adjournment is discretionary and is entitled to deference on appeal: R. v. Millard, 2023 ONCA 426, at paras. 122-123. The appellant does not allege any error in principle in the judge’s exercise of discretion, nor that any of the factors she considered were inappropriate. He simply argues that the trial judge should have weighed those factors differently. In our view, this is not sufficient to displace the deference due to the trial judge’s decision.
|
