Judicial Interpretation Of Section 11(B) Of The Charter
Section 11(b) of the Charter – Text and Purpose
Text:
“Any person charged with an offence has the right to be tried within a reasonable time.”
Purpose:
Section 11(b) protects an accused from undue delay in the criminal justice system, ensuring fairness and avoiding prejudice caused by prolonged legal proceedings. Courts interpret what constitutes a “reasonable time” by balancing:
Length of delay
Reasons for the delay
Whether the accused asserted their right
Prejudice to the accused
This framework was established in R. v. Jordan (2016).
Key Judicial Interpretations and Case Laws
1. R. v. Jordan (2016) – Setting a Framework for “Reasonable Time”
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Facts: The accused faced a criminal trial with a delay of 49.5 months in provincial court and 30 months in superior court.
Issue: Whether this delay violated Section 11(b).
Judicial Reasoning:
Introduced a presumptive ceiling:
18 months for provincial court cases
30 months for cases in superior courts or involving preliminary inquiries
Delays beyond these ceilings are presumptively unreasonable unless justified.
Factors like Crown negligence or systemic delay were considered.
Outcome: Charges stayed due to unreasonable delay.
Significance: Established a bright-line rule for assessing Section 11(b) violations.
2. R. v. Morin (1992) – Pre-Jordan Flexible Approach
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Facts: Delay of two years from charge to trial.
Issue: Whether the delay violated the “reasonable time” right.
Judicial Reasoning:
Adopted a contextual approach, considering:
Length of delay
Explanation for delay
Waiver or assertion of right by accused
Prejudice to accused
Outcome: Delay found reasonable; no violation.
Significance: Before Jordan, courts used a case-by-case flexible standard rather than fixed ceilings.
3. R. v. Askov (1990) – Pre-Jordan Delay Case
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Facts: Criminal trials in Ontario delayed for over 2.5 years.
Issue: Was this delay unreasonable under Section 11(b)?
Judicial Reasoning:
The Court held that such lengthy delays were unjustifiable and violated the accused’s right.
Focused on systemic delay due to court backlog.
Outcome: Charges stayed.
Significance: Led to reforms in court scheduling and was a precursor to Jordan’s presumptive ceilings.
4. R. v. Cody (2017) – Post-Jordan Case
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Facts: Delay exceeded 50 months, and the accused alleged Section 11(b) violation.
Issue: Applying Jordan framework to real-world case.
Judicial Reasoning:
Presumptive ceiling exceeded → presumptively unreasonable delay
Crown failed to justify delay adequately
Outcome: Charges stayed.
Significance: Reinforced Jordan’s framework and highlighted Crown responsibility to manage delays.
5. R. v. K.R.J. (2016) – Complex Cases Post-Jordan
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Facts: A complex sexual assault case with multiple delays.
Issue: How to apply Jordan in complex cases?
Judicial Reasoning:
Jordan allows exceptions for complex cases, but the Crown must justify delays.
Complexity includes multiple accused, expert evidence, and legal complications.
Outcome: Delay found justifiable; trial proceeded.
Significance: Demonstrates that Section 11(b) is not absolute; context matters.
6. R. v. Godin (2015) – Impact of Accused-Contributed Delay
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Facts: Accused caused part of the delay by requesting adjournments.
Issue: Should delays caused by the accused count toward Section 11(b) violation?
Judicial Reasoning:
Delays caused by the accused are excluded from calculating total delay.
Only delays attributable to the state are considered.
Outcome: Delay not unreasonable; no violation.
Significance: Highlights how judicial interpretation distinguishes state delay from accused delay.
7. R. v. S.A. (2015) – Prejudice Requirement
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Facts: Delay of almost two years, accused claimed stress and anxiety.
Issue: Must prejudice be proven for Section 11(b) violation?
Judicial Reasoning:
Pre-Jordan: prejudice was a key factor
Post-Jordan: presumptive ceilings make proving prejudice unnecessary if ceilings exceeded
Outcome: Delay within limits; trial proceeded.
Significance: Shows evolving interpretation pre- and post-Jordan.
Summary of Judicial Interpretation Principles
| Case | Key Principle | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| R. v. Jordan | Presumptive ceilings: 18/30 months | Charges stayed | Bright-line rule for unreasonable delay |
| R. v. Morin | Contextual, flexible approach | No violation | Pre-Jordan standard |
| R. v. Askov | Systemic delays violate 11(b) | Charges stayed | Led to court reform |
| R. v. Cody | Jordan applied; Crown failed to justify | Charges stayed | Reinforces Crown responsibility |
| R. v. K.R.J. | Complex cases exception | Trial proceeded | Balances complexity and fairness |
| R. v. Godin | Delay caused by accused excluded | No violation | Limits accused’s responsibility for delay |
| R. v. S.A. | Prejudice requirement evolved | Trial proceeded | Shows shift in approach post-Jordan |
Key Takeaways
Section 11(b) protects timely trial rights.
Jordan framework introduced presumptive ceilings for delays.
Complexity, accused-caused delays, and Crown justification are critical considerations.
Judicial interpretation balances state efficiency with individual rights.
Post-Jordan, the approach is more structured, compared to flexible pre-Jordan case law.
RELATED Blog
comments