The accused applied under s. 24(1) of the Charter for a stay of fraud charges, alleging a breach of their right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).
The court reviewed the procedural history from the laying of charges in May 2011 to the scheduled trial date in September 2013 and assessed competing characterizations of delay, including alleged Crown delay, institutional delay, and inherent time requirements of the case.
The applicants argued that the Crown improperly laid a breach of trust charge which generated unnecessary disclosure and delay.
The court rejected that argument, finding the Crown had a reasonable prospect of conviction on the breach of trust count and that much of the delay was attributable to the inherent complexity of the case and permissible institutional delay.
Applying the framework from Morin, the court concluded the institutional delay fell within acceptable ranges and that any prejudice suffered by the accused primarily resulted from the charges themselves rather than delay.
