|
Charter - Section 11(b) Trial Delay - Appeals. 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 court considers the appellate SOR for Charter s.11(b) ['trial delay'] issues, particularly issues of case complexity:(1) Standard of Review
[83] The ultimate determination of whether delay is unreasonable and the accused’s s. 11(b) right has been breached is a question of law reviewable for correctness (R. v. Pauls, 2020 ONCA 220, 453 D.L.R. (4th) 193, at para. 40, aff’d R. v. Yusuf, 2021 SCC 2, [2021] 1 S.C.R. 5, at para. 2). An application judge’s factual findings, and their application of the law to the facts, attracts review on the deferential standard of palpable and overriding error (Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, at paras. 10 and 28).
[84] The assessment of case complexity, including the determination of whether the Crown made reasonable efforts to mitigate delay, is a question of mixed fact and law “well within the trial judge’s expertise” and is accordingly entitled to deference (Jordan, at para. 79). Where an application judge’s analysis is affected by an extricable legal error, no deference is owed to the judge’s conclusions (Housen, at para. 37). . R. v. Jacques-Taylor [SOR]
In R. v. Jacques-Taylor (SCC, 2026) the Supreme Court of Canada allowed a Crown appeal, this brought against an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling that upheld an Ontario Court of Justice Charter s.11(b) ['trial delay'] stay of proceedings.
Here the court considers the appellate SOR for Charter s.11(b) ['trial delay'] issues:IV. Standard of Review
[23] The characterization of delay and the ultimate decision concerning the unreasonableness of delay are questions of law. Therefore, they are reviewed according to the correctness standard. However, underlying findings of fact invite deference, absent palpable and overriding error (Boulanger, at para. 4; R. v. Pauls, 2020 ONCA 220, 149 O.R. (3d) 609, at para. 40, aff’d 2021 SCC 2, [2021] 1 S.C.R. 5, at paras. 2‑3).
|
