top of page

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

Site built by:

Allbiss Lawdata Ltd.

303-470 Hensall Circle

Mississauga, ON

L5A 3V4

905-273-3322

biss@lawyers.ca

Advertisement. Allbiss Lawdata Ltd. is not a law office and does not provide legal advice. Please consult a lawyer, solicitor, or attorney in your own jurisdiction. WARNING: All information contained herein is provided for the purpose of providing basic information only and should not be construed as formal legal advice. The author disclaims any and all liability resulting from reliance upon such information. You are strongly encouraged to seek and retain professional legal advice before relying upon any of the information contained herein.

​© Copyright 2022 Allbiss Lawdata Ltd.

    bottom of page