What is the Youth Criminal Justice Act?
Do I Need a Youth Court Lawyer?
Allbiss Lawdata Ltd. is not a law office and does not provide legal advice. Please obtain legal advice from a lawyer in your own jurisdiction.
Case Briefs Database at
lawyers.ca duimetrology.com criminal-lawyers.com courthouses.net
This is a database of lists of cases connected to particular criminal law issues. You can read the full text for most of the cases listed by visiting https://www.canlii.org/. If you are a law student, student-at-law, or a lawyer and you have additional cases that should be added to this list, please contact us at the email address at the bottom of this page. This portion of the database contains notes (some of which are quite old) made by the author and various students.

R. v. Qureshi
Unreported (November 18, 2004)
Facts
ON CA
The respondants Qureshi, Khan and Giavropoulos brutally attacked two young men - S and C - outside a Toronto nightclub. Qureshi punched S Khan pulled out a knife and stabbed him in the chest. When C tried to help his friend the Respondants also attacked him. Qureshi pinned C and Khan stabbed him 5 times in the chest and back. The 3 respondants were later arrested when running towards Giavropoulos's car. The police laid charges the next day. 51 months later, on October 8 2002, the trial judge stayed the charges. He concluded that the lengthy delay from the time charges were laid to the time of the trial violated the respodents' consititutional rights under s. 11(b) to be tried within a reasonable time. The Crown appeals, and submits that the trial judge committed 3 errors. 1. he failed to properly assess the inherent time requirements of the case; 2. He failed to take into account both the minimal prejudice to the respondants from the delay and the societal interest in having a trial on the merits; and 3. He erred in equating this court's judgement in R v. Satkunananthan (2001), 152 C.C.C. (3d) 321.
Reasons
ON CA
The unwaived delay of 44 months from charge date to trial date was not ideal, even for a 2 stage proceeding. The Crown did not move this case forward as aggressively as it might have. However, much of the delay was caused by the inherent time requirements of the case, which are neutral in the s. 11(b) assessment. The systemic delay was not outside the admisistrative guidelines suggested in Morin. The prejudice the respondents suffered from the delay was minimal. The charges are serious. A stay was not appropriate