The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has announced a new practice direction governing applications requesting a stay of proceedings due to
unreasonable delay under s. 11 (b) of the Charter.
Not exact matches
2001)(«The D.C. Circuit, confronting a case in which an agency had unreasonably
delayed an action
under a statute that provided no deadline (rather than and [sic] agency that unlawfully withheld an action
under a statute that imposed a deadline), explained that «a finding that
delay is
unreasonable does not, alone, justify judicial intervention»»).
It's one of the more controversial aspects of a new legal framework issued today by the court for assessing whether a
delay is
unreasonable under the Charter.
In September 2012 the Applicant brought an application for judicial stay of proceedings pursuant to s. 24 (1) of the Charter alleging his rights
under s. 11 (b) had been infringed due to an
unreasonable delay in bringing his case to trial.
Under the Morin framework, prejudice and seriousness of the offence «often played a decisive role in whether
delay was
unreasonable» (Jordan, at para. 96).
The flexibility built into the Jordan framework was not intended to justify
delays that would themselves be found
unreasonable under the older Morin framework,
While a handful of cases have been thrown out as a result of
unreasonable delay, with others pending, and the Crown dropping less pressing matters to free up court time, the judicial system is still
under the gun.