The applicants, charged with sexual assault and administering a stupefying drug, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to a 39-month delay between the charges and the trial date.
The court analyzed the delay using the Morin framework, attributing portions to inherent time requirements, defence actions, Crown actions, and institutional delay.
Although the court found actual and inferred prejudice, the unreasonable delay was calculated to be only one month beyond the Morin guidelines.
The court concluded that this short period of unreasonable delay was outweighed by the societal interest in having the serious charges determined on their merits, and dismissed the application.