The appellant challenged his conviction on the basis that a delay of over three years infringed the right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.
The court held that, despite moderate complexity, the overall delay became unreasonable where the accused consistently took proactive steps to expedite trial and did not cause delay.
It found that delay attributable to co-accused and two adjournments required a more proactive Crown response, including potential severance and earlier date management.
The conviction was set aside and a stay of proceedings was entered.
