The appellant was detained in pre-trial custody on firearm offences and sought a review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.
The reviewing judge applied a two-step test requiring the accused to first establish either unreasonable prosecutorial delay or a material impact of time on the initial basis for detention before the court could assess whether continued detention was justified under s. 515(10).
The Supreme Court allowed the moot appeal to resolve a systemic national divergence, holding that unreasonable delay is not a threshold condition for a s. 525 detention review — the sole overarching question is whether continued detention is justified under s. 515(10).
The Court also clarified the procedural obligations of the jailer to apply forthwith, the judge to schedule the hearing at the earliest opportunity, and the discretion under ss. 525(9) and 526 to give directions expediting the trial.
