Nunavunmi Maligaliuqtiit

NUNAVUT COURT OF JUSTICE

Cour de justice du Nunavut

Citation: R. v. Ford, 2021 NUCJ 7

Date: 20210209
Docket: 18-18-120
Registry: Iqaluit

Crown: Her Majesty the Queen

-and-

Accused: Norman Ford

________________________________________________________________________

Before: Madam Justice Cooper

Counsel (Crown): B. Flight

Counsel (Accused): M. Eaton-Kent

Location Heard: Iqaluit, Nunavut

Date Heard: February 5, 2021
Matters: Application for judicial stay of proceedings pursuant to s.
11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(NOTE: This document may have been edited for publication)

 2

DISCLAIMER PAGE

Restriction on Publication:

By court order made under section 486.4 of the Criminal Code, “any
information that could identify the complainant or a witness shall
not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in
any way.”
 3

I. INTRODUCTION

[1] Norman Ford has brought an application for a judicial stay of

proceedings on the basis that his right to be tried within a reasonable
time pursuant to s.11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has
been infringed.

II. BACKGROUND

[2] On June 19, 2018, an Information was sworn charging the accused
with a sexual assault alleged to have occurred between January 1,
1987 and June 30, 1988. The charge is scheduled to proceed to trial
at the next circuit in Rankin Inlet on March 8, 2021.

III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[3] Due to the lapse of time between the date of the alleged offence and
the swearing of the Information, the Crown was required to proceed
by indictment.

[4] The accused elected to be tried by a judge with a jury and elected to
have a preliminary hearing. That election was made on September
24, 2018. The preliminary hearing was held on February 12, 2020,
and the accused was committed to stand trial. On August 10, 2020,
the Crown re-elected to proceeding summarily, with the consent of the
accused.

[5] A detailed synopsis of the procedure of this matter through the system
is attached as Appendix “A”.

IV. LAW

[6] The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

s. 11 Any person charged with an offence has the right

…
(b) to be tried within a reasonable time

[7] The Supreme Court of Canada in R v Jordan, 2016 SCC 27

established that for indictable matters with a preliminary hearing, any
delay beyond 30 months is presumptively unreasonable.
 4

[8] In an application such as this the court is directed to determine the

total length of the delay and deduct from that any delay attributable to
the Defence. The remaining time is the “net delay”.

[9] If the net delay is below 30 months, the Defence bears the onus of
satisfying the court that the delay is unreasonable, and the charge
should be stayed.

[10] If the net delay is beyond the 30-month ceiling, the delay is presumed
to be unreasonable. The Crown may rebut this presumption of
unreasonable delay by establishing that exceptional circumstances
were the cause of some of the delay, sufficient to bring the remaining
delay below 30 months.

V. ANALYSIS

[11] Defence and Crown do not agree on the delay that is attributable to
the Defence.

A. Defence delay

(i) August 14 – September 24, 2018:

[12] The accused was in custody on unrelated matters in June 2018. He

was in court in Rankin Inlet on those matters when he was charged
with the offence in this matter. His first appearance date was August
14, 2018. On that date he was not present in court. He was in custody
in southern Canada and had not been brought to the community for
his first appearance. Counsel advised that they had been in contact
with the accused and needed more time to “straighten things out”.
The matter was adjourned to September 24, 2018, for accused
election.

[13] The Defence submits that the failure to bring the accused to court for
his first appearance made it impossible to get instructions from him
and it is for that reason an adjournment was required.

[14] The Crown submits that it is clear from the record that counsel had
contact with the accused and was able to communicate with him.
They submit that the delay from August 14 to September 24, 2018 is
attributable to the Defence.
 5

[15] The process prior to the first appearance of an accused highlights

some of the tensions between legal principles that are at play in our
system.

[16] The legal services plan in Nunavut provides almost universal

coverage for criminal matters. The lack of resident counsel coupled
with the high costs of travel and accommodation mean that retaining
counsel privately is not an option for most accused. Consequently,
almost all accused appearing on circuit criminal dockets are
represented by legal aid.

[17] There are three legal clinics, one in each of the three regions, and
each staffed with full time counsel. One of the clinics is in Rankin
Inlet.

[18] The practice has developed that disclosure on all matters on the
docket is provided to the Legal Services Board (LSB) directly by the
Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC). This cooperative
arrangement has served the territory and, most importantly, accused
persons and complainants, well. The agencies and lawyers involved
are to be commended for their work in this regard. However, there is
the potential for issues to arise (for example, is there a breach of
privacy interests by providing disclosure to counsel who is not yet
retained).

[19] The nature of the court process in the territory has led to accused
persons not taking the initiative and seeking out counsel upon being
charged. Generally, they wait until the first day of a court circuit or,
perhaps, a few days before court when the lawyer arrives in the
community. I mention this because depending on the community,
there can be a lengthy delay between the charge date and the first
appearance date. In the context of a delay application who is
responsible for this? Is there some responsibility on an accused to
contact counsel, request disclosure, and have some decisions made
at the first appearance?

[20] In the context of the matter before me, I am advised that disclosure
was provided to the Rankin Inlet legal aid office on July 16, 2018.
Having been in court in June on unrelated matters, it is clear that the
accused had an ongoing relationship with LSB.
 6

[21] The position taken by the Defence that the delay is attributable to
there not having been a removal order issued for the accused is in
direct contrast with the position taken by counsel on the August 2018
circuit.

[22] On August 13, 2018, the matter was spoken to and adjourned to the
following day and the following exchange occurred:

THE CLERK: So does he need a removal order then?

MR. KEMPT: He's not going to be appearing. I'll be appearing as
agent for him regardless
THE CLERK: Okay.
HER WORSHIP: So the matter of Norman Ford will be put over to
August 14 at 9:30. Mr. Kempt has spoken on his behalf. (transcript,
page 1, lines 18-27)

[23] The practice in this jurisdiction is to not transport accused persons to

the community for court if they are in custody outside of the
community unless substantive progress is going to be made on the
file. This practice is often preferred by accused persons as, for the
most part, they do not like to be detained in RCMP cells (which, in
most communities, is where they are held). Elections, pleas, setting
dates, is frequently done by counsel, without the accused being
present, or with the accused present by telephone or video.

[24] The accused in this matter was in custody at the time of the August
2018 appearance. He did not have the right to appear in person. But
for the representations made by counsel on August 13, 2018, he
would have appeared remotely. Disclosure had been provided the
month prior. The adjournment was not required to obtain instructions;
it was required to assign counsel.

[25] Counsel who was in court on August 14, 2018 had spoken with the
accused and indicated that counsel was yet to be assigned and that
the accused had an unrelated matter which also required counsel be
assigned. Counsel requested the matter go to September 24, 2018
although two earlier dates were provided (August 27 and September
10).
 7

[26] Defence Counsel is entitled to time to review disclosure and take

instructions. However, that was not the purpose of the August 14,
2018 adjournment. The purpose of that adjournment was to assign
counsel. This is a relatively straight forward case with few witnesses
and little complexity. Reviewing disclosure and taking instructions
would not have required much time.

[27] I find that the Defence is responsible for the delay from August 27 to
September 24, 2018, a delay of 29 days.

(ii) March 2 - March 16, 2020

[28] The preliminary hearing was concluded on February 12, 2020 and the
accused committed to stand trial. The matter was adjourned to March
2, 2020 assignment court for the purpose of setting a trial date.

[29] At the March 2, 2020 assignment court counsel indicated that a date
could not be set as they were considering what pre-trial applications
would be brought. The matter was adjourned to March 30, 2020.

[30] On March 16, 2020, the territory went in to lock down because of the
COVID-19 pandemic. Regular court operations were suspended so
the March 30, 2020 court appearance did not proceed.

[31] Crown submits that the delay from the March 2, 2020 court
appearance to the March 16, 2020 suspension of regular court
operations is attributable to the Defence as it had not yet filed a s. 276
application despite having formed the intention to do so (and despite
having already done so at the preliminary hearing).

[32] Defence submits that the Crown was not ready to set a trial date as it
required time to decide what experts or applications it might make.

[33] It is difficult to attribute delay for this period of time as it is not entirely
clear what applications were under consideration. The March 2, 2020
appearance indicate the Defence was considering a s. 276 application
and a Corbett application. There was also reference to the calling of
expert evidence, which I understand both Crown and Defence were
considering at some point.

[34] Given the state of the record during this time period I am unable to
attribute delay to the Defence during this time period.
 8

(iii) June 1 – June 22, 2020

[35] This matter was in court on June 1, 2020. At that time Defence
Counsel indicated he had not had communication with his client and
did not have instructions. Defence Counsel wanted the matter put
over to August 19. However, it was adjourned to June 22, 2020.

[36] This delay of 21 days is attributable to the Defence.

(iv) August 31 – October 9, 2020

[37] The s. 276 application was filed on August 9, 2020 (more than five
months after counsel stated on the record an intention to file such an
application and after having done so for the preliminary hearing).
Precisely what transpired from the August 9, 2020 filing of the
application to October 9, 2020, when the hearing was ready to be set,
is not clear except to say that there was confusion and difficulty over
providing both notice and counsel to the complainant for the purposes
of the s. 276 application. Counsel are in agreement that this is delay
the responsibility for which is shared by the Court, Crown, and
Defence.

[38] Twelve days of this delay is attributable to the Defence.

[39] The total amount of delay attributable to the Defence is 62 days. This
leave 16 days beyond the 30-month ceiling provided for in Jordan and
requires that I consider if there were any exceptional circumstances
that contributed to the delay.

VI. EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES

[40] The Supreme Court of Canada in Jordan states that delay due to
exceptional circumstances must also be deducted. Exceptional
circumstances are those that are reasonably unforeseen or
unavoidable and which cannot reasonably be remedied. The court
speaks of two categories of exceptional circumstances: discrete
events and particularly complex cases.

[41] With respect to this matter, there are two discrete events that must be
considered: the unavailability of the complainant due to medical
circumstances and the COVID-19 pandemic, both of which might be
viewed as “discrete events”.
 9

A. Unavailability of the complainant (182 days)

[42] The preliminary hearing in this matter was delayed twice because of
the medical circumstances of the complainant.

[43] The preliminary hearing did not proceed on the December 2018 circuit
as the complainant, who resides in Iqaluit, was recovering from recent
surgery. The Crown requested an adjournment, which was granted,
and the matter was adjourned to February 12, 2019, in Rankin Inlet.

[44] At the February circuit the Crown sought another adjournment. The
Crown advised that the complainant was undergoing a high-risk
pregnancy and had been advised not to travel. Although there was a
May circuit in the community, Defence Counsel (not counsel on this
application) preferred the matter go to the June circuit as he expected
to be counsel on that circuit and wanted to ensure continuity of
counsel (transcript, page 5, lines 14-20).

[45] In discussing discrete events, the court in Jordan referred to medical

circumstances, stating “...it is to be expected that medical or family
emergencies (whether on the part of the accused, important
witnesses, counsel or the trial judge) would generally qualify” (at para
72).

[46] The medical circumstances of the complainant that led to her

unavailability for the preliminary hearing were unexpected and not
avoidable. The medical circumstances were not of indefinite duration
or chronic, rendering the complainant unavailable for the foreseeable
future. In relation to the first adjournment, the medical circumstance
was resolved once the complainant had completed the follow up from
her surgery and was medically cleared. In relation to the second
adjournment, once the baby was born and the complainant recovered
from the birth, she was able to travel.

[47] I find that this is delay of 182 days is due to exceptional

circumstances, bringing the time between charge and anticipated trial
below the Jordan ceiling.

[48] In the event I am in error in so finding, I will also consider the COVID-
19 pandemic and whether that amounts to exceptional circumstances.
 10

B. COVID-19

[49] Defence Counsel submits that the COVID-19 global pandemic which
has shut down travel worldwide, closed businesses, depressed
economies, and restricted the freedom of movement of populations
throughout the world, to say nothing of the death toll, has not
impacted the scheduling of this trial. This submission is incredible.

[50] The pandemic has impacted court operations everywhere, including

Nunavut. Generally speaking, the pandemic has slowed down court
operations and has required an even higher level of cooperation
amongst counsel and the court to move matters along. Business as
usual has not been an option.

[51] The courts in Nunavut have been suspended twice, meaning that all
court circuits were cancelled. Travel within the territory was not
possible.

[52] Deputy judges, whom the court relies upon heavily, have not been
able to travel into the territory. Further, many of them have had to
reduce or terminate their service to the territory as they respond to
pandemic circumstances in their own courts. This means they are not
always available for remote hearings. Consequently, the six resident
judges have covered all the court sittings.

[53] In the fall of 2020, two of the resident judges took long term personal
leave. Strained judicial resources would not normally constitute an
exceptional circumstance but because this reduction in judicial
resources occurred during the pandemic, the court was not able to
supplement its resident judicial pool with deputy judges as it normally
would. Consequently, the number of courts that could sit in any
particular week was reduced from six to four (Justice of the Peace
court, Iqaluit court, and two circuit courts). The court is travelling to
communities less frequently and, once there, the volume of cases is
high.
 11

[54] COVID-19 did not affect only the resources of the judiciary. The
offices of both the Legal Services Board (LSB) and the Public
Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) were closed for extended
periods, and lawyers did not have ready access to files. They could
not meet with clients or witnesses. LSB and PPSC also rely on
counsel from outside of the territory who, until some time into the
pandemic, were not able to travel to Nunavut. Throughout the
numerous meetings LSB and PPSC have had with the judiciary to
manage court matters during the pandemic, both agencies have
acknowledged their capacity issues as well as those of the court
during the pandemic. Both agencies also acknowledged the pressure
on the lawyers and the need for a proper break for them over the
holiday season. The court also acknowledged this and, at the request
of the bar, cancelled a court sitting in Iqaluit scheduled for early
January.

[55] The point of this is to highlight that the pandemic changed the work
environment for both the courts and counsel. Priorities had to change.

[56] Defence Counsel argues that the pandemic did not specifically impact
this case. For example, he submits that the March 16, 2020 closure of
the courts did not impact the case because the Crown did not decide
until July 2020 if it would bring any pretrial applications. The
implication is that despite the territory wide lock down, the Crown is
expected to have carried on with its work as usual. This is not
reasonable and it invites the court to hold the Crown to a standard
that the Defence bar was not able to meet.

[57] The offices of both LSB and PPSC have been closed at various times
during the pandemic. Some lawyers went south, intending to see how
things developed.

[58] PPSC indicated that its lawyers did not have access to their office and
could not readily access files, and that therefore it might take “some
time” to get disclosure to Defence (email of March 23, Appendix B).

[59] On March 31, 2020, legal aid offices in Nunavut issued a notice
indicating that their offices “remained closed” to the public. Phone
numbers were provided for those in need of assistance (see Appendix
C).
 12

[60] Early in the pandemic, there was a great deal of uncertainty. No one
knew how long the pandemic might last, what its effects would be,
and when or if court would be able resume as before. Given that
correctional institutions are high risk environments due to the inability
to physically distance, priority was given to reducing the pressures on
the institutions. This meant that bail hearings, bail reviews, and
sentencing proceedings where the accused was at a “time served”
position were prioritized. All of this work was done remotely, largely by
telephone.

[61] A trial for an out of custody accused (as the accused in this matter
was by this time) was not prioritized, for good reason. As indicated,
the first priority was to release those in custody who were at a point
where they could be released. Secondly, a trial where, upon
conviction, an accused was likely to be sentenced to custody, was
going to increase pressure on the jails and was better put over to a
time where there was more certainty regarding the pandemic.

[62] We are now almost one year into the pandemic and we are, with
limited exceptions, unable to do jury trials because for the most part
the communities do not have facilities that are able to accommodate
the necessary COVID-19 protocols for physical distancing.

[63] The accused in this matter elected to be tried by a judge with a jury.

[64] There is a longstanding tradition in this territory that trials proceed in

the community in which the allegations arise. Having said that, we do
not have “judicial districts” and it is within the discretion of the court to
determine where a trial will proceed. It may be that a consideration of
delay in the context of COVID-19 requires the court to consider
moving jury trials to Iqaluit or other larger centres where they can be
accommodated.

[65] It was not until August 10, 2020 that the matter was to proceed before
a judge alone.
 13

C. COVID-19 in Rankin Inlet

[66] On November 19, 2020, the community of Rankin Inlet, where this
trial is to proceed, was confirmed as having the first case of COVID-
19 in the territory. The number of cases in Rankin Inlet and in nearby
communities increased. On November 18, 2020, the Chief Public
Health Officer declared a territory wide lockdown. The court made the
decision to suspend court operations for the balance of the year. As a
result, the December 7, 2020 circuit to Rankin Inlet was cancelled.

[67] The territorial lockdown was lifted on December 2, 2020. However,

Rankin Inlet remained on strict restrictions. The outbreak of COVID-
19 in Rankin Inlet was not declared over until December 28, 2020.

[68] Counsel for the accused submits that this circumstance is not relevant
and has not contributed to the delay in this matter. In particular, he
submits that the trial could not have proceeded on the December 7,
2020 circuit in any event as the court had not yet issued its decision
on the s. 276 application. I disagree.

[69] Judges, like lawyers and other working professionals, must prioritize
work. The judge on the s. 276 application was acutely aware of the
need to release his decision prior to the trial date. The discussion with
counsel made it clear that receiving the decision one week prior to
trial was sufficient for counsel (see transcript, November 6, 2020,
pages 65-67). When court circuits were cancelled and the trial
adjourned to the next available circuit, the judge was able to
reprioritize his assignments. The decision has now been released,
well in advance of the trial date.

[70] Defence submits that Nunavut has lagged behind other jurisdictions in
offering to conduct proceedings remotely during the pandemic. In his
written brief, Defence Counsel states:

26. Moreover, unlike other jurisdictions once the Crown was made
aware of the possibility that proceedings could be affected by a global
pandemic, no steps were taken to mitigate the impact on dated
proceedings. While Nunavut was ahead of most other jurisdictions at
the beginning of the pandemic, due to its history of remote, oral
proceedings where possible, it quickly fell behind. Other jurisdictions
adopted virtual, video proceedings, including for trials. This option is
still unavailable in Nunavut, even for judge alone, low witness, simple
trials near the presumptive ceiling, such as this one.
 14

[71] This assertion is incorrect.

[72] Crown Counsel has filed the Nunavut Court of Justice’s Memo to the
Bar dated May 27, 2020 (attached as Appendix “D”), issued just over
two months after the first territory wide lockdown. The bar was
encouraged to bring matters forward to be dealt with remotely.
Indeed, this is a theme that runs throughout the various meetings
between the judiciary and the bar throughout the pandemic.

[73] To my knowledge, in addition to various types of civil matters, bail

hearings, bail reviews, sentencing hearings, and one dangerous
offender application, the court has also arranged for two matters to
proceed to trial with the use of video conferencing during the
pandemic. One matter involved an accused in Toronto whose counsel
was also in Toronto. Hotel conference facilities were booked in
Toronto and arrangements were made to have a deputy judge
preside. Crown Counsel and numerous witnesses (including three
who are youthful) were to appear via video. Unfortunately, this matter
had to be cancelled due to an escalation in COVID-19 risk in Toronto.

[74] A second trial involved co-accuseds, one a corporation and the other
an individual, both based in Atlantic Canada. This matter did not
proceed due to the filing of pretrial applications.

[75] For counsel who wished to move matters along, the court was able to
able to work with them to find creative solutions.

[76] However, remote trials engage s. 650 of the Criminal Code:

650 (1) If the court so orders, and if the prosecutor and the accused so
agree, the accused may appear by counsel or by closed-circuit
television or videoconference, for any part of the trial other than a
part in which evidence is taken.
(2) The court may
…
(b) permit the accused to be out of the court during the whole or
any part of his trial on such conditions as the court considers
proper …
 15

[77] In the case of Re: Court File No. 19/578 Ont. S.C., the court held that
s. 650(2)(b) permits the court to order that an accused not be present
for his trial, where the accused consents. In that matter a judge alone
sexual assault trial proceeded via Zoom. As the court in that case
stated, a trial via video can be successful, “but it requires the hard
work and assistance of counsel, the parties, and the court staff to
make it work.” A collaborative approach to trial via video is especially
essential in Nunavut, where the infrastructure to facilitate remote
hearings lacks the availability and quality possible in other
jurisdictions. As recognized in Nunavut Tunngavik Inc’s recent report,
Nunavut’s Infrastructure Gap (October 2020), these challenges affect
all aspects of service delivery in Nunavut.

[78] While many courts (including the Nunavut Court of Justice) are
offering “remote trials”, it is my understanding all courts require the
consent of the accused before proceeding with a remote trial. This
must be so in order that s. 650 is not violated.

[79] The Defence submits that there were no attempts to mitigate the
delay caused by the cancellation of the December circuit as the
Crown did not offer a remote trial to the accused. I understand the
argument to be that the Crown must specifically, on a case-by-case
basis, offer a remote trial to an accused.

[80] I reject this submission. While the Crown may not have canvassed
with counsel the possibility of a remote trial in this particular matter,
the court certainly urged all counsel to consider remote hearings in all
matters. Despite this urging, counsel in this matter appears to not
have been aware of the opportunity.

[81] Again, in the context of COVID-19, recognizing the capacity issues of

all agencies involved, the court adopted the approach of relying on
counsel to decide which matters they could best move forward via a
remote hearing.

[82] I find that the delay from December 7, 2020 to the anticipated March
8, 2021 trial date is an exceptional circumstance.

[83] For the purposes of this decision, it is not necessary for me to decide
if the entire period of COVID-19 since mid-March 2020 constitutes an
exceptional circumstance and I decline to decide that issue.
 16

VII. CONCLUSION

[84] The application for a judicial stay of proceedings due to a breach of

the accused’s right to be tried within a reasonable time is dismissed.

[85] The matter will proceed to trial on March 8, 2021, in Rankin Inlet.

Dated at the City of Iqaluit this 9th day of February, 2021

___________________
Justice S. Cooper
Nunavut Court of Justice
Appendix A

NORMAN FORD:

Record of Proceedings:

June 19, 2018: Information sworn

December 19, 2020: 30 month Jordan ceiling

Aug.13, 2018: A'd serving sentence in the south

adjourned to Aug. 14, 2018

Aug.14, 2018: crown election entered – indictment

defence request for adjournment
A'd in the south
A'd has another pending file
counsel needs to be assigned
adjourned to Sept.24, 2018, Iqaluit

Sept.24, 2018: A'd elects Judge and jury, with preliminary hearing
set to Dec.11, 2018, for preliminary hearing.

Dec.11, 2018: Crown request for an adjournment

complainant recovering from surgery in the south
defence opposed adjournment
adjourned to February 12, 2019

Feb.12, 2019: complainant undergoing high risk pregnancy

and advised not to travel
baby due in April
defence did not oppose adjournment
adjourned to June 11, 2019
defence preferred June because Regal available

June 11, 2019: no transcript

complainant made disclosure on eve of preliminary
hearing that required a s.276 application if it was to
be used
issue arose as to whether a s.276 application could be
Appendix A
made at the preliminary hearing

June 21, 2019: argument on availability of s. 276 at preliminary hearing

Sept. 9, 2019: counsel of view that Cooper seized of the matter

(incorrectly)
adjourned to Sept. 30, 2019 for Preliminary hearing

Sept. 30, 2019: issue as the whether A’d still entitled to preliminary
hearing because of Bill c-75

Oct. 1, 2019: counsel spoke to the issue regarding the availability of a

preliminary hearing
court indicated it was prepared to hear and decide the
matter that week (this was the Tuesday of the
circuit) so preliminary hearing could proceed that
week
crown wanted to preliminary hearing to proceed.
Defence position was that the issue, if it was to be
addressed, required fulsome argument and wanted
the matter put over for argument

Oct. 8, 2019 – couple of adjournments, the reasons for which are not
Feb. 12 2020 clear

Feb. 12, 2020: preliminary hearing

March 2, 2020
assignment court: adjourned to March 30th assignment court
defence indicated there were a number of applications

March 17, 2020: court suspended operations due to Covid

adjourned to June 1, 2020

June 1, 2020: defence requested August 10th

defence couldn't contact client
court suggested June 22nd, at which time dates could be
set for pre-trial applications (none filed at this point)
defence indicated he couldn’t proceed without instructions
on a jurisdictional issue
adjourned to June 22, 2020

June 22, 2020: defence indicated there was at least one application to be
scheduled and possibly others
Appendix A
defence suggested adjournment to July 6th

July 6, 2020: no transcript

adjourned to August 10, 2020

August 9, 2020: s.276 application filed

August 10, 2020: crown re-elected summarily, with consent

adjourned to August 31, 2020

August 31, 2020: adjourned to October 9, 2020 so complainant's counsel

could appear

October 9, 2020: adjourned to Oct. 15th

October 15, 2020: s.276 hearing could not proceed because complainant was
either not notified or changed her mind about wanting to
be represented

November 6, 2020: s. 276 application heard

set for Dec. 7, 2020, for trial
court advised that decision would be ready by Nov. 30Th,
one week before the trial
counsel indicated that was sufficient time

November 17, 2020: territorial wide lock down due to covid

NCJ court operations suspended for the balance of 2020

February 4, 2021: decision on s.276 application issued

February 5, 2021: delay application heard

Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D