The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter, arguing that the 18-month and 7-day delay from the swearing of the Information to the anticipated end of trial exceeded the presumptive ceiling.
The Crown argued that discrete periods of delay were attributable to the defence.
The court found that a significant period of delay was attributable to the defence due to the failure to promptly schedule a judicial pre-trial and partial responsibility for non-compliance with the Jordan-Compliant Trial Scheduling Practice Direction.
After deducting the defence-attributable delay, the net delay fell well below the 18-month ceiling.
The application was dismissed.
