Remedying Unreasonable Delay
In R. v. Jordan, the Supreme Court of Canada adopted presumptive ceilings for determining whether the right to be tried within a reasonable time is violated. In so doing, the Supreme Court eschewed any balancing of individual and societal interests at the rights stage of analysis. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not simultaneously reconsider its prior determination that the only remedy for unreasonable delay is a stay of proceedings. As balancing individual and societal interests is fundamental to determining whether a stay is justified, the next logical step is to shift this balancing to the remedial stage of analysis. In so doing, the accused should typically be required to prove that the harm suffered irreparably undermines fair trial interests before proceedings are stayed in response to unreasonable delay. A stay of proceedings in these circumstances, however, ought not be restricted to “non-serious” crimes. Where the harm relates to the accused’s liberty or security interests, other remedies should be granted. The Senate’s recent proposal to grant monetary rewards is feasible if supplemented with other remedies that limit the continued impact of delay on an accused’s liberty and security interests. I nevertheless maintain that using financial compensation to remedy the impact of delay on these interests ought to be approached with caution as it could encourage complacency towards delay. To counteract this incentive, stays of proceedings should remain available if the Crown uses this narrower remedial structure as a means to “buy time” to conduct prosecutions.
For Editions following and including Volume 61 No. 1, the following applies.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License
For Editions prior to Volume 61 No. 1, the following applies.
Author(s) retain original copyright in the substantive content of the titled work, subject to the following rights that are granted indefinitely:
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to produce, publish, disseminate, and distribute the titled work in electronic format to online database services, including, but not limited to: LexisNexis, QuickLaw, HeinOnline, and EBSCO;
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to post the titled work on the Alberta Law Review website and/or related websites.
- Author(s) agree that the titled work may be used for educational or instructional purposes and/or in educational or instructional materials. The author(s) acknowledge that the titled work is subject to other such "fair dealing" provisions and applicable legislation.
- Author(s) grant a limited license to those accessing the titled work from an electronic database or an Alberta Law Review website to download the titled work onto their computer and to print a copy for their own personal, non-commercial use, subject to proper attribution.
To use the journal's content elsewhere, permission must be obtained from the author(s) and the Alberta Law Review.