The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter following his conviction for sexual assault at a second trial.
The first trial ended in a mistrial declared by the judge due to scheduling issues.
The court found that the net delay exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling under the Jordan framework.
While the mistrial was an exceptional circumstance, the subsequent 9.5-month delay to schedule the second trial was largely systemic and unreasonable.
The court also found the accused suffered specific prejudice due to the delay.
The application was granted and a stay of proceedings was ordered.
