R. v. Ryan

R. v. Ryan

The accused and his counsel participated in scheduling and expressly or implicitly consented to trial dates at Crownside such that waiver by conduct reduced the relevant delay; after deducting periods attributable to the accused and agreed scheduling the remaining delay (approximately fifteen months) was not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2004 NSSC 85
Parties
Crown/respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused/applicant: Joseph Daniel Paul Ryan
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Stay Under S.11(b) of the Charter / Pre Trial Application (decision on S.11(b) Delay)
Outcome
Application for stay dismissed; trial to proceed as scheduled.
Legal Topics
Unreasonable Delay, Stay of Proceedings, Charter S.11(b), Disclosure Obligations
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional/charter Law Pre Trial Procedure Unreasonable Delay Stay of Proceedings Charter S.11(b) Disclosure Obligations

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown/respondent

Joseph Daniel Paul Ryan

Accused/applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Application for Stay Under S.11(b) of the Charter / Pre Trial Application (decision on S.11(b) Delay)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused is responsible for portions of the delay
  2. 2 Whether the accused waived time by conduct or agreement to dates
  3. 3 Whether remaining delay after deductions is unreasonable under s.11(b)

Ratio Decidendi

The accused and his counsel participated in scheduling and expressly or implicitly consented to trial dates at Crownside such that waiver by conduct reduced the relevant delay; after deducting periods attributable to the accused and agreed scheduling the remaining delay (approximately fifteen months) was not unreasonable, no actual prejudice was shown, and the stay application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for stay dismissed; trial to proceed as scheduled.

Orders

  • Stay of proceedings dismissed.
  • Trial scheduled to proceed June 14-18, 2004.