Search results
We accept Mr. Jordan’s invitation — which was echoed by the Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario), the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, and Mr. Williamson in the companion appeal of R. v. Williamson, 2016 SCC 28, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 741 — to revise the s. 11 (b) analysis.
On July 8, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada released R v Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 [Jordan], a decision that fundamentally changed the framework that determines whether an accused has been tried within a reasonable time under s 11(b) of the Charter. While the impact of explicitly overthrowing a well-established framework with years of precedent remains to be seen, it is clear that this decision has ...
One year after the decision, all signs seem to say that Jordan decision is indeed a game-changer. Going forward, the question remains whether all actors within the justice system will continue to work proactively to combat trial delays after the issue fades away from the public spotlight. For more information:
- Clarifying Unreasonable Delay
- Application to Environmental Prosecutions
- Conclusions
R v Jordanset out “ceilings” establishing the maximum reasonable amount of time that can elapse from the laying of charges upon an accused until the end of his or her trial. For matters tried in Provincial Court, the ceiling established by the Supreme Court is 18 months; for matters tried in Superior Court, the ceiling is 30 months. The Court also ...
The Ontario Court of Justice ruling in R v Stephenson Rental Services (a prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act) provided some clarity by confirming that the ceilings established in R v Jordanapply to the prosecution of regulatory offences where the accused is a corporation as opposed to a natural person. Since then, several decis...
The factual and evidentiary complexities involved in environmental prosecutions make them particularly susceptible to delays. As such, it is very likely that R v Jordan will continue to play a role. Parties to environmental prosecutions will want to consider a few salient points that have emerged from some of the decisions to apply R v Jordanthus f...
R. v. Jordan [2] was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which rejected the framework traditionally used to determine whether an accused was tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and replaced it with a presumptive ceiling of 18 months between the charges and the trial in a provincial court without preliminary inquiry, or 30 ...
Share your videos with friends, family, and the world
People also ask
How did the Supreme Court v Jordan impact environmental prosecutions?
What R v Jordan changed Jordan?
What happened in R v Jordan?
How has R v Jordan affected criminal prosecutions?
How did Canada respond to the Jordan decision?
How many co-accused were charged in the Jordan v Jordan case?
May 6, 2022 · This appeal concerns the interaction between the culture shift introduced by this Court since R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631, the presumptive ceilings within which an accused must be brought to trial, and the situation — not contemplated by Jordan — in which a new trial is ordered.
