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 - Right to be tried within a reasonable time - Whether the trial judge erred in concluding that the Crown was not responsible for the delay caused by the direct indictment - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the trial judge failed to attribute sufficient delay to the appellant - Whether a stay of proceedings should be granted pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter.

The appellant was convicted of unlawful possession of a restricted firearm and of unauthorized transfer of a restricted firearm. A period of approximately 36 months elapsed between the time the appellant was charged and the time his trial concluded. He appealed the convictions on the basis that the trial judge erred in not entering a stay of proceedings pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He argued his right to a timely trial was infringed. A majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Bennett J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal and entered a stay of proceedings. In her view, while the trial judge correctly considered the factors set out in R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771, she erred in concluding that the effect of the delay caused by the Crown’s decision to file a direct indictment was neutral. Bennett J.A. found that it was clearly foreseeable by the Crown that the effect of the direct indictment would be to add to an already lengthy delay, and that that time should have been considered as an “action of the Crown”. Moreover, when the effect of the direct indictment is weighed against the Crown, the delay could no longer be considered reasonable, and the appellant’s s. 11(b) right was infringed.