The accused, Michael Kirby, appealed his convictions for four counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm, all arising from separate dog attacks involving his animals. That case summary is available here.
He argued that his trial took too long in violation of his Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time (s. 11(b)), and that the guilty verdicts were inconsistent because he was acquitted of breaching his bail condition about controlling his dogs.
The Court of Appeal rejected both arguments. It found that most of the delay was caused by Kirby or his lawyers, so the overall timeline did not exceed the Jordan limit. It also explained that the offences required different mental elements: criminal negligence is judged by an objective standard, while breaching bail requires proof that the accused acted knowingly or recklessly. Because these standards differ, the verdicts were not contradictory. The Court further found no error in how the trial judge assessed the evidence from the Tim Hortons incident.
The appeal was dismissed and all convictions were upheld.
https://canlii.ca/t/k30cl