R. v. Graham

R. v. Graham

The judge exercised judicial discretion to refuse to entertain the s.11(b) application because notice and materials were provided unreasonably late, causing prejudice to the Crown and other parties; an adjournment was not appropriate given prior delays and logistical prejudice, and therefore the application was not permitted and the trial was directed to proceed.

Citation
2008 NSPC 83
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Steven Gillis Graham
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Charter Application Hearing (s.11(b) Alleged Breach)
Outcome
Application for a stay under s.11(b) not entertained and refused for lack of timely notice; no adjournment granted; trial directed to proceed.
Legal Topics
Section 11(b) Unreasonable Delay, Charter Remedies, Notice Requirements for Charter Applications, Adjournment and Stay of Proceedings
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Procedural Law Section 11(b) Unreasonable Delay Charter Remedies Notice Requirements for Charter Applications Adjournment and Stay of Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Steven Gillis Graham

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Charter Application Hearing (s.11(b) Alleged Breach)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused's s.11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time was breached
  2. 2 Whether the accused provided timely and sufficient notice of the s.11(b) Charter application
  3. 3 Whether the Court should grant an adjournment to allow the Crown to respond or refuse to entertain the late application and proceed to trial

Ratio Decidendi

The judge exercised judicial discretion to refuse to entertain the s.11(b) application because notice and materials were provided unreasonably late, causing prejudice to the Crown and other parties; an adjournment was not appropriate given prior delays and logistical prejudice, and therefore the application was not permitted and the trial was directed to proceed.

Court Disposition

Application for a stay under s.11(b) not entertained and refused for lack of timely notice; no adjournment granted; trial directed to proceed.

Orders

  • Charter application not entertained due to insufficient and untimely notice
  • No adjournment granted; trial to proceed as scheduled