Walk away on a technicality

I am a parent which was affected by the unscrupulous behaviour of the principal organizers of the OEHA. We were promised a trip to Europe for our sons to play hockey in 2012. We had put up a deposit and fund raised money for this trip for our then, 14 year old sons.

Realizing in early February 2012, that there were problems and admissions from the organizers that all of the money had been liquidated from our accounts and used for personal income, personal expenses and investing into a project that none of the parents were consulted on. At this time, we contacted the RCMP in Penticton and submitted evidence for charges of Fraud and Theft.

This case has finally made its way into the Penticton courts in September 2017, there was a trial of 3 weeks where most of the parent group and other witness testifying to the allegations of fraud and theft. One of the accused showed up and stood trail the other did not.

Now we find out that this case is in jeopardy of failing due to the length of time the Crown took to get around to prosecuting the case. I can understand that if the Courts of Canada in 2016 determined that all criminal cases need to be prosecuted within a 30 month period or less. 

What I do not understand is in this cases the charges were filed 33 months prior to trial how they can be affected by a ruling from 2016. There should be a precedence set within that ruling of 2016 that allows all cases already within the system to tried, should be done in a reasonable time frame after that ruling so as the criminal process can be carried out and cases can be satisfied to the extent of the law.

I would hate to see these individuals walk away from the consequences of their action due to a technicality of a court ruling made after the date of their charges.

Ken Whitehead