R. v. Reyes, 2024 ONCJ 27

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE CITATION: R. v. Reyes, 2024 ONCJ 27 DATE: 2024·01·18 NEWMARKET BETWEEN: HIS MAJESTY THE KING — AND — WILLIAM REYES ENDORSEMENT Delivered: 18 JAN 24 Ms. Azizi .................................................................................................. counsel for the Crown Mr. H. Bassi ...................................................................................... counsel for the defendant KENKEL J.: [1] The Information was sworn on April 19, 2022.

A two-day trial was requested and scheduled on October 26, 2022. [2] On December 11, 2023, the matter was brought forward and spoken to in Trial Confirmation Court – a new added procedureset a month ahead of the trial date aimed at identifying any last-minute issues that might prevent trials going ahead. An agent attendedfor Mr. Bassi and relayed his confirmation that the trial was ready to proceed as scheduled. [3] Today was the first day set for trial. Mr. Bassi advised that his client would be pleading guilty. There was no prior notice tothe court or the Crown.

The Crown’s witness attended in-person. [4] Unfortunately, this case is not unique. It provides an example of the case management challenges this court has faced sincebefore the time of R v Askov, (SCC), [1990] SCJ No 106.

Since that time, this court and other high-volume provincialcourts across the country have tried many different ways to ensure that precious trial time is assigned only to those cases that need it.Despite those efforts, it remains the fact that in many jurisdictions (including this one) there is a high collapse rate on the day of trial. [5] There will always be some matters that do not proceed as scheduled for reasons such as illness and other factors. However,those circumstances are unusual and don’t explain the many cases that are simply resolved by plea at the time of arraignment.

Failure touse trial time as scheduled causes a delay for all other matters that are waiting in the system. Courts overbook to accommodate thisphenomena, but even booking multiple trials per courtroom too often results in a day like today where several trial court lists havecollapsed. [6] This is not a criticism of any of the new case management procedures. Continuous innovation is essential.

But cases such asthis one point out that any process has its limits, and there are some things that simply can’t be controlled through case management.Everyone including counsel have a role to play in ensuring the efficient use of trial time. Delivered: January 18, 2024.

Justice Joseph F. Kenkel