As verdict looms, Safdar lawyers will argue to toss trial

Complicated domestic violence case has been before the courts for 41 months

LAWYERS IN HAMILTON’S longest-running trial will ask for the domestic violence case to be tossed out because it has been going on for a year. And a child custody case involving the same family is in danger of a mistrial because a lawyer is ill.

All evidence in the strange and complicated criminal court trial of three members of the Safdar family has been heard by Justice Andrew Goodman, who expects to render his verdict in November — 14 months after the trial opened.

But before that, he will hear an 11B application from the defendants, requesting the proceedings be stayed because their right to a speedy trial has been violated.

The trial, which has unfolded a few days at a time, is complex: three accused, many witnesses, 10 days of testimony from the alleged victim alone and accusations of abuse that span months. Also, every bit of testimony has had to be translated from English to Urdu for one of the accused, and the trial was once put on hold for a week because the assistant Crown attorney was ill.

The synopsis of the case goes like this: Sara Salim, a medical doctor, says her husband and his family tortured and abused her at their home in Binbrook.

The Safdar family says Sara was mentally ill, caused all her injuries to herself — including a broken jaw — and made up a story of abuse to win her fouryear-old daughter back in a custody battle.

The child is currently in the custody of her father, Adeel Safdar, who lives with the two other accused.

Adeel, 38, is charged with assault, assault with a weapon, assault bodily harm, threatening death, and aggravated assault. He has a PhD in kinesiology.

His mother, Shaheen Safdar, 63, faces the same charges.

His brother, Aatif Safdar, 36, is charged with assault bodily harm, assault with a weapon, assault and threatening death.

Nader Hasan, lawyer for Shaheen, is bringing the 11B application next month. The proceedings far exceed the 30-month limit set by the game-changing Jordan decision, which stipulates the maximum time from arrest to resolution. The Safdars were arrested in April 2015, meaning their case has been before the court for 41 months.

The Supreme Court of Canada rendered the Jordan judgment on July 8, 2016, ruling the drug convictions of Barrett Jordan in British Columbia had to be set aside due to unreasonable delay. The court then set out specific time lines for cases in provincial and Superior court because we all have a guarantee under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be tried in a reasonable period of time. In active cases where the charges predate the Jordan decision — called transitional cases — there may be some flexibility on the time limit.

Meanwhile, Adeel and Sara have been fighting over their daughter.

The family court trial was to begin Aug. 17, but didn’t because Sara’s lawyer was gravely ill.

The case was back before Justice Mary Jo McLaren on Tuesday, and she told the court the lawyer is so unwell that he is “not returning to the practice of law.”

Adeel told McLaren he intends to make a motion for a mistrial.

The Spectator has been trying to follow the family court case because it raises serious questions about how the Safdars, who are on trial for some of the most serious violent offences in the Criminal Code of Canada, are being allowed to care for a small child.

Reporting on that matter has been fraught with problems.

For months, The Spec has been trying to obtain a copy of a sealing order placed on the family court documents at about the same time I published my first column about the criminal trial. Family court has repeatedly told The Spec that even the sealing order is sealed — a nonsensical statement the newspaper has taken issue with.

Finally, after repeated requests, The Spec received a copy of the sealing order from Regional Senior Justice Harrison Arrell of the Superior Court of Justice.

The handwritten order of Dec. 1, 2017, simply says: “O/C of both parties the file is sealed.” “O/C” means “on consent.” A more dramatic reporting roadblock came last month when Justice McLaren kicked me out of her courtroom without giving me any explanation why. When I asked, she called security.

I wrote a column about it.

I was back in McLaren’s court on Tuesday for the same case. This time, she allowed me to stay as the trial date was pushed to October to give Sara time to find a new lawyer.

Ironically, when McLaren again raised her concern about me being in the courtroom, it was Adeel Safdar himself who challenged the judge.

“I have no issue with the reporter being here,” Adeel told her. “I didn’t have an issue the last time, either.”

The proceedings far exceed the 30-month limit set by the game-changing Jordan decision, which stipulates the maximum time from arrest to resolution.