The applicant sought a stay of proceedings on a charge of theft over $5000, alleging unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter after multiple disclosure problems and two adjourned trial dates.
The court applied the Jordan framework and the Hanan contextual apportionment principle to determine which periods were defence delay and how ensuing delay after the adjournments should be allocated.
Although the court found the matter took markedly longer than it reasonably should have and criticized delayed core disclosure, the net delay was reduced to 17.5 months, below the 18-month presumptive ceiling.
The application failed because the applicant had not taken meaningful and sustained steps to expedite the proceedings.
