|
Charter - Section 11(b) - Vrbanic (SCC, 2026). R. v. Vrbanic
In R. v. Vrbanic (SCC, 2026) the Supreme Court of Canada allowed a Crown appeal, this brought against a Ont CA dismissal, this respecting an earlier OCJ holding that "the respondents’ s. 11(b) Charter rights had been violated and entered a stay of proceedings on their charges".
Here the Supreme Court summarizes this case:I. Introduction
[1] In the decade since this Court rendered its decision in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631, the principles it expounded have not diminished in salience. Timely justice continues to be a hallmark of a free and democratic society. An efficient criminal justice system remains of the utmost importance. And the public and private interests engaged by the state’s ability to bring accused persons to trial within a reasonable time are no less significant.
[2] Before this Court, the Crown notes, with great concern, the number of proceedings that have been stayed under the Jordan framework. In particular, the Crown points to the stay of proceedings ordered in this case, where the net delay exceeded the Jordan ceiling by just four days. The Crown urges us to change the law by equipping judges with a residual discretion in order to avoid finding a violation of s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in such close cases.
[3] In my view, the Jordan framework already provides the flexibility necessary to address the Crown’s concerns. To the extent that jurisprudential and legislative developments in the past decade have increased the complexity of criminal trials, the Jordan framework can comfortably respond.
[4] This is not an appropriate case in which to consider more fundamental changes to the Jordan ceilings or to revisit the remedy for a breach of s. 11(b) of the Charter. Instead, this appeal offers this Court an opportunity to clarify how the exceptional circumstance of particular complexity can justify delay in excess of a Jordan ceiling. A proper application of Jordan’s case complexity exception to the facts of this case demonstrates that the respondents’ right to trial within a reasonable time was not violated. This is why, at the hearing of this matter, we unanimously allowed the Crown’s appeal, set aside the stay, and remitted the matter back for trial, with reasons to follow.
|
