The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrines the fundamental right of every person charged with an offence to be tried within a reasonable time, and avoid unreasonable delays. Section 11(b) of the Charter explicitly states:
“11. Any person charged with an offence has the right: (b) to be tried within a reasonable time;”
This constitutional safeguard ensures that individuals facing criminal charges are not subjected to prolonged legal proceedings. Unreasonable delay in criminal proceedings can have significant negative consequences, including:
Prejudice to the Defense
Excessive delays can hinder the accused’s ability to prepare a robust defence. Witnesses may become unavailable, memories may fade, and crucial evidence may be lost or compromised. This can significantly weaken the accused’s ability to challenge the Crown’s case and present their own defence effectively.
Psychological Stress
The uncertainty and anxiety associated with a prolonged legal process can take a toll on an individual’s mental health. The constant stress of waiting for the trial to begin can lead to anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues. This can also impact the accused’s ability to function personally and professionally in their daily lives.
Strain on the Justice System
Delays contribute to an overwhelmed legal system, causing a backlog of cases. As the courts deal with an increasing number of delayed proceedings, the ability to focus on and resolve new cases diminishes. This not only reduces the system’s efficiency but also negatively impacts other individuals waiting for their day in court. Overcrowding in courtrooms can lead to rushed decisions, inadequate preparation, and, ultimately, the undermining of justice for all involved.
Erosion of Public Confidence
Unreasonable delays can undermine public trust in the justice system. It may appear to the public that the system is not functioning efficiently or fairly. When individuals are subjected to lengthy delays, it can create a perception that the justice system is not prioritizing the timely resolution of cases. This can lead to a loss of public confidence in the system’s ability to deliver justice in a timely and efficient manner.
The Jordan Framework: A Landmark Decision
The 2016 landmark Supreme Court of Canada case of R. v. Jordan, established a framework for assessing unreasonable delay. The Court recognized that prolonged delays can harm the accused’s rights and the integrity of the justice system. The Court introduced presumptive trial time ceilings to address this issue:
- Provincial Court: 18 months from the charge to the anticipated end of trial.
- Superior Court: 30 months from the charge to the anticipated end of trial.
These ceilings are not rigid deadlines but rather benchmarks to guide the assessment of reasonableness. If a case exceeds these ceilings, the Crown bears the burden of demonstrating that exceptional circumstances justify the delay.
The Jordan framework emphasizes the importance of efficient case management and timely decision-making by both the Crown and the courts. It aims to strike a balance between the rights of the accused and the interests of society in the administration of justice. By setting clear expectations for the duration of criminal proceedings, the Jordan framework promotes the timely resolution of cases and access to justice.
Factors Considered in Assessing Unreasonable Delay
Beyond the Jordan framework, courts consider several other factors when assessing unreasonable delay:
Nature of the Case
The complexity of the case, including the number of accused, the volume of evidence, the number of witnesses, the legal issues involved, and the need for expert evidence, can all impact the reasonable time for trial. More complex cases may require additional time for preparation and presentation of evidence, while simpler cases may be resolved more quickly.
Conduct of the Parties
Delays caused by either the Crown or the Defence can be considered. Factors such as the number of adjournments requested, the reasons for those adjournments, and the timeliness of disclosure can influence the assessment. The Crown has a duty to disclose all relevant evidence to the defence in a timely manner. The failure to do so can contribute to delay. Similarly, the Defence is responsible for cooperating with the Crown and the court to expedite the proceedings.
Court Congestion
Backlogs in the court system can contribute to delays, but this factor alone is insufficient to justify unreasonable delay. Court congestion can be caused by various factors, including a shortage of judges, a lack of courtrooms, and insufficient funding. However, these factors do not excuse the Crown from its obligation to bring cases to trial within a reasonable time. The Crown must take steps to manage its caseload efficiently and to avoid unnecessary delays.
It is important to note that court congestion is not always the fault of the Crown or the defence. In some cases, it may be due to systemic issues, such as a lack of resources or inefficient court procedures. However, even in such cases, the Crown still has a duty to bring cases to trial within a reasonable time.
Prejudice to the Accused
It is important to consider the extent to which the delay has prejudiced the accused’s ability to defend themselves when determining whether a delay is unreasonable. The defence may struggle to present its case or challenge the Crown’s evidence when key witnesses become unavailable due to death, illness, or relocation. As witnesses’ memories fade, the Defence may struggle to challenge the Crown’s case or make its own. Evidence may be lost or destroyed, impeding the Defence’s ability to prepare its case. The prolonged uncertainty and anxiety associated with a lengthy legal process can negatively impact the accused’s mental health, making it difficult to participate meaningfully in the legal process. Furthermore, the financial burden of a prolonged legal process can be significant, making it difficult for the accused to afford adequate legal representation.
Remedies for Unreasonable Delay
If a court finds that a delay is unreasonable, it may grant a stay of proceedings. This would effectively dismiss the charges against the accused. This is a serious remedy, as it can result in the accused being acquitted of the charges. As such, courts will only grant stays in cases of significant and unjustified delay.
A stay of proceedings can significantly impact the accused, as it can restore their reputation and allow them to move on with their lives. However, it is important to note that a stay of proceedings does not necessarily mean that the accused is innocent. It simply means that the Crown has failed to bring the case to trial within a reasonable time.
A Timely Trial is Crucial
The right to a timely trial is a cornerstone of the Canadian justice system. The Jordan framework provides a clear and effective tool for assessing unreasonable delay, but it is essential to consider the specific circumstances of each case. By understanding the factors that contribute to unreasonable delay and the remedies available, individuals charged with crimes can protect their rights and ensure that justice is served promptly and fairly.
Contact Barrison Law in Oshawa for Skilled Criminal Defence Services
At Barrison Law, our experienced criminal defence lawyers proudly serve clients in Oshawa, Durham Region, and the Central East Region of Ontario. Since 1992, we have built a strong reputation for providing responsive client service and vigorous criminal defence advocacy. We understand the profound impact of unreasonable delays in criminal proceedings, including their toll on an accused person’s rights and well-being. Whether facing charges related to assault, weapons offences, or drug offences, our team is committed to moving your case forward efficiently and that your rights are protected against any unjustified delay. To discuss how delays may be affecting your case, schedule a consultation by contacting us online or calling 905-404-1947 (toll-free at 1-888-680-1947).