Wikipedia photo
The Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island has denied a request to stay proceedings against a man who pleaded guilty to drug trafficking, despite finding that the Crown breached his Charter rights by disclosing key evidence only after his guilty plea.
Roy George Crant had sought a stay of proceedings, arguing that the late disclosure and subsequent delays in his sentencing violated his rights to a fair trial and to be dealt with in a reasonable time. While On On Oct. 31, Chief Justice Tracey L. Clements agreed his Section 7 Charter right to make a full defence was breached, she found the drastic remedy of a stay was not warranted in this case.
The legal saga began in May 2024, when Crant pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. At his request, sentencing was adjourned until September 2024 so he could pursue a summer employment opportunity.
The case took a dramatic turn in late June 2024, a month after the guilty plea, when the Crown informed Crant’s lawyer, Will G. Cann, that police had located previously undisclosed evidence. The material consisted of a cellphone extraction report from a co-accused’s phone, containing text messages between the two men.
The full disclosure was not provided to the defence until early October 2024, forcing the adjournment of the September sentencing hearing.
Crant subsequently filed a Charter application, alleging the late disclosure violated his Section 7 right to make full answer and defence, and the ensuing delays violated his Section 11(b) right to be sentenced within a reasonable time.
In an endorsement released June 25, 2025, and elaborated upon in reasons released b Chief Justice Clements found the late disclosure was a clear breach of Crant’s Section 7 rights.
“The Crown’s disclosure obligations are a cornerstone of the criminal justice process,” the Chief Justice wrote. She noted that while the Crown eventually provided the material, its failure to do so before Crant entered his plea undermined the integrity of the process.
However, the court declined to order a stay of proceedings, noting that Crant’s lawyer had since reviewed the late disclosure and confirmed it did not create a factual dispute for sentencing. The court found that a less drastic remedy, such as a potential reduction in sentence, could address the prejudice caused by the breach.
On the delay argument, the court was not persuaded. Crant’s lawyer had urged the court to adopt a five-month “presumptive ceiling” for unreasonable post-conviction delay, as established in an Ontario case.
Chief Justice Clements rejected this argument, noting that the vast majority of the delay was either caused or waived by the defence. She highlighted that the initial four-month adjournment was at Crant’s request for employment, and that his lawyer had explicitly waived any delay associated with bringing the Charter application.
“The totality of the record before me simply does not support a s. 11(b) Charter infringement,” the Chief Justice concluded.
With the Charter application decided, the case will now proceed to a sentencing hearing, where Crant’s lawyer is expected to argue for a reduced penalty based on the Crown’s disclosure breach.
