1 total
No s. 11(b) breach where defence delay reduced net delay below ceiling.
The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter in a large project prosecution involving wiretaps, numerous accused, and voluminous disclosure.
Applying the Jordan framework, the court found that although the total delay exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling by 11 days, 6 weeks of delay were attributable to the defence because counsel failed to respond to repeated efforts to secure earlier trial dates.
That deduction brought the net delay below the ceiling.
In any event, the court held that the modest over-ceiling delay was justified by the particular complexity of the proceedings and that the defence had not taken meaningful steps to expedite the matter.
