Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Charter of rights - Criminal law - Right to be tried within reasonable time - Courts - Excess of jurisdiction - Whether trial judge erred in finding certain anticipated delays unreasonable without taking certain relevant factors into account - Whether trial judge committed error equivalent to excess of jurisdiction in creating situation that had unfair and irremediable effect on prosecution’s position - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 11(b).

In April 2009, a police operation known as Operation SharQ led to the arrest of more than 150 people identified by the prosecution as members of the Hells Angels or as being associated in some way with the organization. On October 5, 2009, the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions authorized the preferring of a direct indictment against these persons on 29 counts, including one of conspiracy to commit murder, 22 of murder and others concerning various offences related to drug trafficking. The charges covered a period of nearly 20 years and were the result of more than 70 police investigations. The trial judge ordered a stay of proceedings for the counts concerning the offences of conspiracy to traffic in and trafficking in narcotics, participation in activities of a criminal organization and commission of an indictable offence for a criminal organization. On appeal, the appellant argued, inter alia, that the trial judge had erred in ordering the stay on the counts other than conspiracy to murder and murder on the basis that the delays, to which anticipated delays were added, were unreasonable. Doyon J.A., with whom Gagnon J.A. agreed in concurring reasons, dismissed the appeal. Doyon J.A. could not find that the trial judge had decided the issue of the stay of proceedings without giving the parties a chance to be heard, nor could he find that the trial judge had exceeded his jurisdiction by causing irreparable harm to the prosecution without having heard it first. Lévesque J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal, set aside all the orders, and ordered that each of the accused stand trial on the above-mentioned counts and that each of the accused whose names appeared on these counts be placed in the situation he was in on May 31, 2001, before the stay was ordered. He reached this conclusion because, in his opinion, the trial judge had erred regarding the anticipated reasonable delays, since he considered the judge’s conclusions with respect to these delays to be based on an assessment that was fragmented, premature, flimsy and speculative. Lévesque J.A. also found that the judge had committed an error with respect to his jurisdiction by rendering decisions that caused irreparable harm to the prosecution without having heard it first.