Judicial Interpretation Of Section 11(B) Charter Rights
Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that:
“Any person charged with an offence has the right to be tried within a reasonable time.”
This provision primarily seeks to protect accused persons from undue delay, ensuring fairness, maintaining public confidence in the justice system, and safeguarding against prejudice caused by prolonged trials.
1. Key Principles of Section 11(b)
Reasonable Time Standard
Courts assess whether the time from charge to conclusion of trial is reasonable.
Delay is analyzed on case-specific factors.
Balancing Test (R v. Jordan, 2016)
Supreme Court of Canada established a presumptive ceiling for delay:
18 months for cases tried in provincial court
30 months for cases in superior courts or involving a preliminary inquiry
Delays beyond these ceilings are presumed unreasonable, unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Factors Considered in Delay Analysis
Length of delay
Reasons for delay (systemic vs. defense-caused)
Waiver or acquiescence by the accused
Prejudice to the accused (e.g., stress, memory loss, interference with defense)
Remedies for Breach
Stay of proceedings (trial halted permanently)
Exclusion of evidence in some instances
2. Important Case Studies
1. R v. Jordan (2016, SCC)
Facts:
Accused faced 49.5 months delay between charges and trial due to systemic and Crown-related delays.
Judicial Interpretation:
Supreme Court overhauled the framework for analyzing Section 11(b) delays.
Introduced “presumptive ceilings”: 18 months (provincial court) / 30 months (superior court).
Delays beyond ceilings are presumed unreasonable unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Outcome:
Jordan’s trial stayed; charges dropped.
Significance:
Landmark case; modern standard for reasonable trial delay under Section 11(b).
2. R v. Morin (1992, SCC)
Facts:
Accused argued pre-trial delay of 38 months violated Section 11(b).
Judicial Interpretation:
Court adopted a balancing approach considering:
Length of delay
Reasons (including Crown and defense responsibility)
Prejudice to accused
Outcome:
Section 11(b) breach found; trial stayed.
Significance:
Established pre-Jordan analytical framework for assessing delay.
3. R v. Askov (1990, SCC)
Facts:
Charges laid in 1982; trial began in 1986 (approx. 4-year delay).
Judicial Interpretation:
Section 11(b) breach established due to excessive systemic delay.
Court emphasized that public interest in timely justice outweighs minor Crown reasons.
Outcome:
Trial stayed.
Significance:
Early recognition of systemic delay as violation of Charter rights.
4. R v. Cody (2017, SCC)
Facts:
Accused faced 65-month delay from charges to trial in superior court.
Judicial Interpretation:
Applied Jordan framework; determined systemic delays and Crown-related adjournments exceeded the 30-month ceiling.
Assessed accused’s waiver and prejudice.
Outcome:
Section 11(b) breach; trial stayed.
Significance:
Reinforced Jordan presumptive ceilings in practice.
5. R v. Feeney (2019, ONCA)
Facts:
Delay of 33 months in a superior court matter.
Judicial Interpretation:
Court analyzed exceptional circumstances: complex case requiring expert testimony.
Delay still exceeded 30-month ceiling, but partial delay excused due to exceptional procedural complexity.
Outcome:
Section 11(b) breach recognized but trial not stayed; mitigation measures suggested.
Significance:
Demonstrates nuanced application of Jordan ceilings and exceptional circumstances.
6. R v. K.P. (2020, BCPC)
Facts:
Youth accused; trial delayed due to COVID-19 restrictions.
Judicial Interpretation:
Delay attributable to extraordinary circumstances (pandemic) considered an exceptional circumstance under Jordan.
Courts balance public health vs. accused’s right to timely trial.
Outcome:
Delay excused; trial proceeded.
Significance:
Illustrates flexibility in Section 11(b) interpretation during emergencies.
7. R v. L.M. (2021, NSCA)
Facts:
Accused faced preliminary inquiry adjournments and Crown-requested extensions.
Judicial Interpretation:
Courts applied Jordan framework, separating delays attributable to Crown/system from accused-caused delays.
Found total effective delay exceeded ceiling; stayed trial.
Outcome:
Charges stayed due to Section 11(b) breach.
Significance:
Highlights strict enforcement of presumptive ceilings, discouraging unnecessary adjournments.
3. Comparative Observations
| Case | Court | Delay | Section 11(b) Analysis | Outcome | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jordan | SCC | 49.5 months | Introduced 18/30 month ceilings | Trial stayed | Presumptive ceiling framework |
| Morin | SCC | 38 months | Balancing approach pre-Jordan | Trial stayed | Considered prejudice & delay cause |
| Askov | SCC | 4 years | Systemic delay | Trial stayed | Early recognition of systemic delays |
| Cody | SCC | 65 months | Jordan ceiling applied | Trial stayed | Enforcement of presumptive ceilings |
| Feeney | ONCA | 33 months | Exceptional circumstances | Trial allowed | Complexity may justify partial delay |
| K.P. | BCPC | COVID-related | Extraordinary circumstances | Trial allowed | Flexibility during emergencies |
| L.M. | NSCA | Preliminary inquiry adjournments | Jordan framework | Trial stayed | Distinction between Crown/system vs accused delay |
4. Key Observations
Jordan framework is the modern standard for Section 11(b) delays.
Presumptive ceilings (18/30 months) simplify assessment but allow exceptions.
Delays are analyzed by source: systemic/Crown vs defense vs extraordinary events.
Remedy is severe: a stay of proceedings, reflecting the importance of timely trials.
Courts balance public interest in prosecution against accused’s right to timely justice.
5. Conclusion
Section 11(b) guarantees the right to be tried within a reasonable time, protecting against prejudice and preserving fairness.
Judicial interpretation has evolved:
Pre-Jordan: case-by-case balancing approach (Morin, Askov)
Post-Jordan: presumptive ceilings with limited exceptions (Cody, Feeney)
Exceptional circumstances (pandemics, complexity) are considered (K.P., Feeney).
Courts consistently enforce the ceiling strictly to maintain public confidence in justice and deter systemic delay.
RELATED Blog
comments