Yes No Share to Facebook
Trial Delay Limit: Section 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Question: What rights do individuals have regarding the timeline of their trial?
Answer: Individuals charged with a crime have the constitutional right to be tried within a reasonable time, as enshrined in section 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. According to the Supreme Court's ruling in R. v. Jordan, the presumptive ceilings are set at 18 months for provincial courts and 30 months for superior courts. If these timelines are exceeded, cases may be stayed, protecting the accused's rights and highlighting the importance of timely legal proceedings. Forseti Legal Services can help you navigate your legal concerns to ensure your rights are upheld throughout the justice process.
The Right to be Tried Within a Reasonable Time
A person accused of a crime contrary to the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, or an offence prosecutable per the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, thus ranging from a serious murder case to a minor traffic ticket case, is provided with the constitutional right to have the case proceed to trial within a reasonable time. Of course, the principled question of what is "reasonable" often arises and was addressed by the Supreme Court in what are now known as "the Jordan principles". Where the Trial of a case fails to occur within the Jordan principle time limits, the case may be stayed, meaning further disallowed, as a violation of the Charter rights of the accused person.
The Law
As per The Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, Chapter 11, a constitutional right to a trial within a reasonable time is mandated within section 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which reads:
Proceedings in criminal and penal matters
11 Any person charged with an offence has the right ...
(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;
The section 11(b) right prescribed within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a sanctity within Canadian law and was the focus of review by the Supreme Court within the case of R. v. Jordan, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631, which addressed concerns for unreasonable delays within criminal proceedings, among other cases, as was, or appeared as, commonly occurring within the justice system.
When a case is stayed due to an unreasonable delay, the general public and media often criticize the justice system as well as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for allowing a crime or an offence to go unpunished. A common attitude sometimes arises that a technicality is providing a free pass to an accused person. When such a circumstance arises, it is important that the general public, and the victim of the alleged crime or offence, recognize that the justice system process caused the delay and thus the law within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be without blame. It is important to bear in mind that a person accused of a crime or offence, including the family of such a person, may be, and often is, gravely impacted by the charge and unreasonable delay in receiving a trial may be highly prejudicial to the ability to experience a fair trial and the right of presumed innocence.
In the Jordan case, after conducting a review regarding delay concerns and the mandate imposed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Supreme Court established timing boundaries for cases proceeding as charges within the Superior Court system or as charges within the Provincial Court system whereas it was said:
[46] At the heart of the new framework is a ceiling beyond which delay is presumptively unreasonable. The presumptive ceiling is set at 18 months for cases going to trial in the provincial court, and at 30 months for cases going to trial in the superior court (or cases going to trial in the provincial court after a preliminary inquiry).
[47] If the total delay from the charge to the actual or anticipated end of trial (minus defence delay) exceeds the ceiling, then the delay is presumptively unreasonable. To rebut this presumption, the Crown must establish the presence of exceptional circumstances. If it cannot, the delay is unreasonable and a stay will follow.
[48] If the total delay from the charge to the actual or anticipated end of trial (minus defence delay or a period of delay attributable to exceptional circumstances) falls below the presumptive ceiling, then the onus is on the defence to show that the delay is unreasonable. To do so, the defence must establish that (1) it took meaningful steps that demonstrate a sustained effort to expedite the proceedings, and (2) the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have. We expect stays beneath the ceiling to be rare, and limited to clear cases.
Also see the cases of:
- Halton (Regional Municipality) v. Grewal, 2024 ONCJ 470
- R. v. Dossa, 2023 ONCJ 570
- R. v. J.F., 2022 SCC 17 (CanLII), 2022 SCJ 17 at paragraph 23 and paragraph 27
- R. v. Cody, 2017 SCC 31 at paragraph 20 to paragraph 25
- R. v. Coulter, 2016 ONCA 704 at paragraph 34 to paragraph 41
As below, CBC News provides an interesting investigative report regarding the section 11(b) rights including Jordan principles and the general public concern that court cases be heard within a reasonable time to ensure that matters, especially serious criminal matters, are addressed rather than stayed due to perceived technicalities.
Conclusion
A person charged with a crime or an offence is provided the right to a Trial within a reasonable time per the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Per the Supreme Court as decided within the Jordan case, a criminal case proceeding within the Superior Court system must, with few exceptions, be heard within thirty (30) months and an provincial offences case proceeding within the Provincial Court system must, with few exceptions, be heard within eighteen (18) months. Upon a failure to adhere to these timelines, the proceeding should be stayed without a Trial of the accused person.
Learn About:
Learn More About Trial Delay Limit...
Here are links to two (2) other webpages:
NOTE: Many searches involving “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” often reflect a need for immediate, capable legal representation rather than a specific professional title. In the province of Ontario, licensed paralegals are regulated by the same Law Society that oversees lawyers and are authorized to represent clients in designated litigation matters. Advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural skill are central to that role. Forseti Legal Services delivers representation within its licensed mandate, concentrating on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and persuasive advocacy aimed at achieving efficient and favourable resolutions for clients.