The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter due to an alleged violation of his s. 11(b) right to a trial without unreasonable delay.
The total delay was 35.5 months, exceeding the 18-month Jordan ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.
The Crown argued the Jordan clock should start at arrest or that pre-arrest delay was an exceptional circumstance.
The court affirmed that the Jordan clock begins when the information is sworn.
It found that police efforts to locate the accused after the information was sworn, particularly after he was known to be in custody, did not meet the standard of due diligence, and thus the pre-arrest delay was not an exceptional circumstance or attributable to defence delay.
After deducting a period of defence delay, the net delay remained 28.75 months, which was presumptively unreasonable and not rebutted by the Crown.
A stay of proceedings was warranted.
