Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Upholds Stay in Fatal THC Driving Case
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has upheld a stay of proceedings in a tragic THC-impaired driving case, despite finding that the trial judge made errors in calculating delay time. The court ruled that Taylor Kennedy's trial for charges related to the death of nine-year-old Baeleigh Emily Maurice still exceeded constitutional time limits.
Court Finds Errors in Delay Calculation
In a decision released on Friday, Chief Justice Robert Leurer, with Justices Naheed Bardai and Meghan McCreary concurring, dismissed a Crown appeal that argued Kennedy was tried within a reasonable timeframe. The appeal judges acknowledged that Provincial Court Judge Jane Wooten erred in her calculation of what constituted reasonable delay under the Supreme Court's Jordan ruling.
The court determined that Judge Wooten should have granted the Crown an additional 120 days due to COVID-19 pandemic-related delays, plus 14 more days attributed to defence-related factors. Despite these calculation errors, the appeal court concluded that Kennedy's trial still took too long to proceed, violating her Charter rights.
Tragic Background and Legal Proceedings
Taylor Kennedy was charged in March 2022 with driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana causing death. The charges stemmed from a September 9, 2021 incident where Kennedy fatally struck Baeleigh Maurice, who was riding a scooter in a crosswalk at 33rd Street and Avenue G in Saskatoon around 9 a.m.
Kennedy's provincial court trial began in October 2023, and her charges were stayed in December 2024 after Judge Wooten found that trial delays had violated her Charter rights. The Supreme Court's Jordan ruling establishes that provincial court trials must conclude within 18 months of charges being laid, unless the Crown can demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying an extension.
Conflicting Delay Calculations
The case featured conflicting calculations of trial delay. Kennedy's lawyer, Thomas Hines, argued that her trial had been delayed by 23 months, while prosecutors contended the delay was only 14 months. The Crown had requested an additional 60 days due to what they called exceptional circumstances, specifically citing defence motions alleging Charter violations.
The appeal court rejected this argument, finding that any delay related to Charter motions wasn't solely caused by the defence. Despite the Crown's position, the judges maintained that Kennedy's trial significantly exceeded what is allowable under the Charter.
Implications of the Decision
A stay of proceedings allows charges to be withdrawn unless new evidence emerges within one year. Had the Crown's appeal been successful and the time limit found not to exceed Jordan parameters, a new trial could have been ordered.
The court's decision emphasizes the strict application of constitutional timelines for criminal proceedings, even in cases involving serious charges. The ruling maintains that while calculation errors occurred, the fundamental violation of timely trial rights remained evident.
This case continues to highlight the ongoing legal challenges surrounding impaired driving charges and the balance between prosecutorial needs and defendants' constitutional rights to timely trials.
