April 21, 2025

The Right to a Speedy Trial in Ontario: What the Law Says

The right to a speedy trial is a cornerstone of Canada’s criminal justice system, enshrined in Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This right ensures that individuals charged with an offense are not subjected to undue delays that could prejudice their case or undermine public confidence in the justice system.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s landmark decision in R. v. Jordan established clear time limits for trials, holding courts and prosecutors accountable for delays.

What Does Section 11(b) of the Charter Guarantee?

Section 11(b) states:

“Any person charged with an offense has the right to be tried within a reasonable time.”

This right serves three key purposes:

• Protecting Fairness: Delays can jeopardize the accused’s ability to mount a defense as evidence fades and witnesses become unavailable.
• Minimizing Prejudice: Long waits can cause undue stress, anxiety, and stigma for the accused.
• Maintaining Confidence in Justice: A timely trial ensures public faith in the legal system’s efficiency and fairness.

The Impact of R. v. Jordan

The Supreme Court’s ruling in R. v. Jordan established “presumptive ceilings” for the time it should take to bring a case to trial:

• 18 Months for cases in provincial courts.
• 30 Months for cases in superior courts or those involving a preliminary inquiry.

If a delay exceeds these limits, it is presumed unreasonable unless the Crown can prove that exceptional circumstances caused the delay.

Recent Ottawa Decisions on Section 11(b)

Ontario courts continue to refine the application of Section 11(b) through new rulings. Here are some key cases from 2023 and 2024:

1. R. v. Hanan

• Background: The accused faced delays of nearly four years from the date of their charges in December 2015 to the conclusion of their trial in November 2019. The defense argued that this delay breached Section 11(b).
• Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defense, emphasizing that Crown refusals to streamline the trial process contributed significantly to the delay. The case resulted in a stay of proceedings.

2. R. v. Osifo

• Background: In this case, delays arose due to scheduling conflicts and defense unavailability.
• Outcome: The Ontario Court of Justice carefully allocated delays, distinguishing between delays attributable to the Crown and those caused by the defense. The court ultimately found that the delays did not exceed the Jordan threshold.

3. R. v. B.D.

• Background: The accused faced prolonged delays but had failed to raise concerns early in the process.
• Outcome: The court ruled that portions of the delay were attributable to the defense, as they did not proactively address scheduling issues. This ruling highlighted the importance of defense counsel actively managing trial timelines.

4. R. v. Bahram Kabiri (2024)

• Background: The accused faced delays of 26 months, well below the 18-month Jordan ceiling for trials in provincial court. 
• Outcome: The judge found that even after deducting time for pandemic-related and judicial illness delays, the case still exceeded the Jordan ceiling by over two months. The court determined that the delay was not justified and that Kabiri’s right to a timely trial had been violated.

5. R. v. Sean Smith

• Background: In this case, the accused waited approximately 23 months to have his trial.  The defence argued that the delay was primarily caused by court scheduling inefficiencies, while the Crown argued that some of the delay was attributable to the defence, including time taken to obtain disclosure, schedule pretrials and set trial dates. 
• Outcome: The judge ruled that while some of the delays were due to procedural requirements, a significant portion resulted from court inefficiencies and administrative backlogs, which were not attributable to the defense. The court also emphasized that stacking too many trials on the same court day increases the risk of Jordan violations when cases get pushed back. Since the Crown was unable to justify the delay under exceptional circumstances, the case was dismissed.

New Practice Direction on Section 11(b) Applications (2023)

In November 2023, the Ontario Court of Justice introduced new guidelines for managing Section 11(b) applications, emphasizing fairness and efficiency:

• Application Timeline: Applications must be heard at least four months before the trial date.
• Defense Obligations: Defense counsel must notify the court early if they intend to bring a Section 11(b) application.
• Streamlined Scheduling: Courts are prioritizing cases nearing the presumptive ceilings to avoid breaches.

What Happens When Delays Exceed Limits?

If a court finds that a delay has breached Section 11(b):

1. Stay of Proceedings: The primary remedy is a stay of proceedings, meaning the charges are dismissed, and the accused is no longer subject to prosecution.
2. Exclusion of Evidence: In some cases, evidence obtained during periods of unreasonable delay may be excluded.

Practical Tips for Accused Individuals

If you believe your right to a speedy trial has been violated, consider the following steps:

1. Work Closely with Your Lawyer

Your lawyer can help track case delays and identify whether they breach Section 11(b).

2. Document Delays

Keep detailed records of court appearances, adjournments, and reasons for delays.

3. Act Early

Raise concerns about trial delays as soon as possible to strengthen your Section 11(b) claim.

Conclusion

The right to a speedy trial is vital to ensuring justice and fairness in Ontario’s courts. The Jordan framework and recent rulings reinforce the importance of accountability in the justice system. If you are facing trial delays, contact me today for expert legal advice. Together, we can protect your rights and pursue a fair resolution.

---