Photo – THE CANADIAN PRESS/Ethan Cairns

B.C. Court of Appeal weighs Crown request for new trial after sexual assault case was stayed over delays tied to disclosure and Jordan limits.

Crown Pushes for New Trial as Appeal Unfolds in B.C.

So, once again, a sexual assault case from British Columbia is back before the courts. However, this time, the focus is not guilt or innocence. Instead, the key issue is delay. Meanwhile, the Crown is asking for a new trial, while the defence wants the stay to stand.

Therefore, the British Columbia Court of Appeal has reserved its decision. As a result, the final outcome remains uncertain.

Case Thrown Out After Delay Limits Reached

First, a provincial court judge stayed the case in April 2025. This happened because the trial did not finish within the strict timeline set by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Jordan ruling.

In fact, the Jordan framework sets clear limits. Specifically, it allows 18 months for provincial court cases and 30 months for superior courts. Consequently, many cases across Canada have been stayed when timelines run too long.

Here, the accused, a Vancouver Island man under a publication ban, faced sexual assault and assault charges tied to alleged events in June 2023. Meanwhile, his trial was set for February 2025. However, the Jordan limit expired in March 2025.

Dispute Over Thousands of Text Messages

However, the real conflict centres on disclosure. Crown counsel Lara Vizsolyi told the court that prosecutors faced a serious dilemma.

On one hand, they had to follow a court order. On the other hand, they had to protect complainants’ privacy. Therefore, they hesitated when ordered to disclose thousands of private text messages from a seized phone.

Moreover, Vizsolyi argued that once private messages are released, privacy cannot be restored. So, she said the Crown risked “irreversible harm.”

At the same time, complainants had their own lawyers. Also, those lawyers planned to challenge the disclosure order. However, that challenge never moved forward.

Crown Says It Followed a Difficult Path

Next, the Crown argued it tried to manage a complex situation. For example, Vizsolyi said prosecutors faced funding issues involving one complainant’s legal team. In addition, she said the disclosure order created an unusual and difficult legal scenario.

Still, she admitted the Crown could have acted differently. However, she stressed that prosecutors had to balance fairness, privacy, and legal duty at the same time.

Meanwhile, Justice Harvey Groberman noted something important. He said court orders must be followed unless a higher court changes them. Therefore, he questioned whether the Crown could now challenge that earlier decision indirectly.

Defence Rejects Blame for Delays

Meanwhile, defence lawyer Tony Paisana pushed back strongly. He said the defence did not cause the delay. Instead, he argued the Crown’s disclosure issues triggered the collapse of the timeline.

In addition, Paisana said the text messages mattered. He suggested they could show the complainants “conspired to lie to police.”

So, he argued it was unfair for the Crown to shift blame. Also, he said the Crown never clearly identified any delay caused by the defence.

Defence Says Trial Was Not Complex

Next, defence lawyer Sarah Pringle told the court the case itself was not complicated. Therefore, she said the delay did not come from legal complexity or defence tactics.

Instead, she said the disclosure dispute caused a chain reaction. As a result, the case “went off the rails” from the start.

Consequently, she urged the court to uphold the stay and dismiss the Crown’s appeal.

Judges Reserve Decision After Heated Debate

Finally, both sides agreed on one point. The disclosure issue created a domino effect. However, they strongly disagreed on responsibility.

So, the Crown asked for a new trial. Meanwhile, the defence asked for the stay to remain.

Therefore, the British Columbia Court of Appeal will decide later. Until then, the case remains unresolved, and both sides wait for judgment.