R. v. Widalko

R. v. Widalko

The court adopts the two-step enquiry: s.525 applications must focus first on whether there has been unreasonable delay in bringing the matter to trial and whether its consequences can be ameliorated; only if unreasonable delay exists and cannot be remedied does the court proceed to determine whether continued detention is justified under s.515(10). The court follows recent same-court decisions endorsing that approach under principles of judicial comity absent clear error of law.

Citation
2013 BCSC 2077
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Dexter Philip Widalko
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review of Detention Pending Trial (s.525) / Section 525 Application/hearing (adjourned to Resume Nov 28, 2013)
Outcome
Section 525 application to proceed under the two-step enquiry approach (focus on unreasonable delay first; only if delay is unreasonable and unameliorable will s.515(10) be considered); court follows recent BCSC authorities endorsing that approach.
Legal Topics
Section 525 Criminal Code, Section 515(10) Criminal Code, Section 520 Criminal Code, Unreasonable Trial Delay, Two Step Enquiry Vs S.515(10) Approach, Horizontal Stare Decisis (judicial Comity)
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Bail and Pre Trial Detention Statutory Interpretation Judicial Precedent/comity Section 525 Criminal Code Section 515(10) Criminal Code Section 520 Criminal Code Unreasonable Trial Delay +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Dexter Philip Widalko

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Review of Detention Pending Trial (s.525) / Section 525 Application/hearing (adjourned to Resume Nov 28, 2013)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.525 requires a full reconsideration of detention under s.515(10) upon expiry of the prescribed period or only requires inquiry into unreasonable delay first
  2. 2 Whether factors in s.515(10) must always be considered on a s.525 review regardless of delay
  3. 3 How judicial comity (horizontal stare decisis) should guide departure from prior same-court decisions

Ratio Decidendi

The court adopts the two-step enquiry: s.525 applications must focus first on whether there has been unreasonable delay in bringing the matter to trial and whether its consequences can be ameliorated; only if unreasonable delay exists and cannot be remedied does the court proceed to determine whether continued detention is justified under s.515(10). The court follows recent same-court decisions endorsing that approach under principles of judicial comity absent clear error of law.

Court Disposition

Section 525 application to proceed under the two-step enquiry approach (focus on unreasonable delay first; only if delay is unreasonable and unameliorable will s.515(10) be considered); court follows recent BCSC authorities endorsing that approach.

Orders

  • Hearing to resume on November 28, 2013 (subject to being brought forward)
  • If accused elects to apply under s.520 the s.520 application will be heard on resumption and the s.525 hearing will be adjourned