Yahoo Canada Web Search

Search results

1. canliiconnects.org › en › commentariesOverthrowing Precedent: R v Jordan’s Impact on the Crown and ...

   canliiconnects.org › en › commentaries

   • Cached

   What R v Jordan Changed. Jordan begins with a declaration by the Supreme Court that the old framework for assessing s 11(b) violations, established in R v Morin, 1992 CanLII 89 (SCC), [1992] 1 SCR 771 [Morin], suffered from doctrinal and practical problems that have led to a culture of delay and complacency in the courts. It is for these ...

2. www.lawyerwpg.ca › blog › overthrowing-precedent-r-vTHE SEMINAL CASE OF R v JORDAN, AND HOW IT HAS EFFECTED ...

   www.lawyerwpg.ca › blog › overthrowing-precedent-r-v

   • Cached

   What R v Jordan Changed Jordan begins with a declaration by the Supreme Court that the old framework for assessing s 11(b) violations, established in R v Morin, [1992] 1 SCR 771 [Morin], suffered from doctrinal and practical problems that have led to a culture of delay and complacency in the courts. It is for these reasons that the Supreme ...

3. www.constitutionalstudies.ca › 2017 › 07One Year Post-Jordan: Was it really a game changer?

   www.constitutionalstudies.ca › 2017 › 07

   • Cached

   One Year Post-Jordan: Was it really a game changer? One year ago, the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Jordan set new timelines for completing criminal trials, giving new life to an accused person’s right to be tried within a reasonable time. [1] The Court stated that complacency in the justice system needed to be addressed and ...

4. canliiconnects.org › en › commentariesAfter R v Jordan: Reflections on the R v KJM, R v KGK and ...

   canliiconnects.org › en › commentaries

   • Cached

   Dec 17, 2019 · R v Jordan was heard on July 8th, 2016 and has significantly changed the practice of criminal law. However, with any significant change, there are still growing pains. The issues regarding delay and the timeline ceilings in Jordan raise more questions than it answers.

5. www.lavery.ca › en › publicationsImpact of the decision in R. v. Jordan on public law - Lavery

   www.lavery.ca › en › publications

   • Cached

   Apr 2, 2024 · The decision rendered by the Supreme Court in R. v. Jordan3 marks a significant change as compared to the prior law. Indeed, in this decision (numbering 303 paragraphs), the majority judges discarded the framework established in Morin, noting the unforeseeability of its application, the inconsistencies in the treatment of the concept of ...

6. www.constitutionalstudies.ca › 2020 › 06To be Tried Within a Reasonable Time: Affirming the Jordan ...

   www.constitutionalstudies.ca › 2020 › 06

   • Cached

   Jun 23, 2020 · See R v MNT, 2016 BCPC 338 at para 6 . Ibid at paras 24-30. R v Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 at para 49 . Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11, s 11(b) .

7. People also ask

   What R v Jordan changed Jordan?

   • What R v Jordan Changed Jordan begins with a declaration by the Supreme Court that the old framework for assessing s 11 (b) violations, established in R v Morin, 1992 CanLII 89 (SCC), 1 SCR 771 [Morin], suffered from doctrinal and practical problems that have led to a culture of delay and complacency in the courts.

   Overthrowing Precedent: R v Jordan’s Impact on the Crown and the Right

   canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/43201

   See all results for this question

   What happened in R v Jordan?

   • One year ago, the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Jordan set new timelines for completing criminal trials, giving new life to an accused person’s right to be tried within a reasonable time.

   One Year Post-Jordan: Was it really a game changer?

   www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2017/07/one-year-post-jordan-was-it-really-a-game-changer/?print=print

   See all results for this question

   How has R v Jordan changed criminal law?

   • R v Jordan was heard on July 8th, 2016 and has significantly changed the practice of criminal law. However, with any significant change, there are still growing pains. The issues regarding delay and the timeline ceilings in Jordan raise more questions than it answers. One of those issues was recently addressed in R v KJM, 2019 SCC 55.

   After R v Jordan: Reflections on the R v KJM, R v KGK and Subsequent

   canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/69970

   See all results for this question

   What did the Supreme Court decide in R v jordan3?

   • The decision rendered by the Supreme Court in R. v. Jordan3 marks a significant change as compared to the prior law.

   Impact of the decision in R. v. Jordan on public law | Lavery

   www.lavery.ca/en/publications/our-publications/2975-impact-of-the-decision-in-r-v-jordan-on-public-law.html

   See all results for this question

   How has the Supreme Court changed in Jordan?

   • The Supreme Court emphasised these harms in Jordan and created a new, stricter, framework to ensure trials proceed more quickly. Since then, the Court has had opportunities to clarify and modify their approach. While they have made minor changes, they have generally stuck to the Jordan framework.

   To be Tried Within a Reasonable Time: Affirming the Jordan Ceilings

   www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2020/06/to-be-tried-within-a-reasonable-time-affirming-the-jordan-ceilings/

   See all results for this question

   Why did the Supreme Court change the Jordan ceilings?

   • After the Supreme Court’s decision in Jordan, some expected the Court to modify the ceilings to allow for greater delays. The Jordan ceilings meant that even very serious offences would be stayed because of delays. Instead, the Court doubled down, reaffirming the importance of timeliness in criminal trials.

   To be Tried Within a Reasonable Time: Affirming the Jordan Ceilings

   www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2020/06/to-be-tried-within-a-reasonable-time-affirming-the-jordan-ceilings/

   See all results for this question

8. www.canlii.org › en › ca2016 SCC 27 (CanLII) | R. v. Jordan | CanLII

   www.canlii.org › en › ca

   • Cached

   R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631. Barrett Richard Jordan Appellant. v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent. and. Attorney General of Alberta, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and