R. v. Spears

R. v. Spears

The judge exercised discretion to refuse a mid-trial hearing of the s.11(b) Jordan application because none of the exceptional policy considerations favoring mid-trial adjudication were present, there were no court-implicated or ongoing constitutional violations requiring immediate attention, no demonstrated time savings, and a mid-trial hearing would disrupt and likely extend the trial and deny the benefit of a more complete underlying factual record.

Citation
2017 NSPC 17
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Darrell Spears; Defendant: Spears Framing Limited; Defendant: Spears Concrete Formwork, Inc.; Defendant: SCF Services Incorporated
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Charges Include Fraud, Tax and HST Offences / Ongoing Trial; Defendants Sought Mid Trial Section 11(b) (jordan) Delay Application Hearing
Outcome
Application to hear the Jordan (s.11(b)) delay application mid-trial denied; trial continuation dates will be used to complete the Crown’s case; Jordan application may be heard on some or all of May 29, 2017, May 31, 2017 and June 1, 2017 but decision will be reserved until after conclusion of the trial.
Legal Topics
Section 11(b) Right to Be Tried Within a Reasonable Time, Jordan Framework, Mid Trial Delay Application, Stay of Proceedings, Trial Scheduling and Judicial Case Management
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Tax Law Procedure Trial Management Section 11(b) Right to Be Tried Within a Reasonable Time Jordan Framework Mid Trial Delay Application Stay of Proceedings +1 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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Darrell Spears

Defendant

Spears Framing Limited

Defendant

Spears Concrete Formwork, Inc.

Defendant

SCF Services Incorporated

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Charges Include Fraud, Tax and HST Offences / Ongoing Trial; Defendants Sought Mid Trial Section 11(b) (jordan) Delay Application Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Jordan (s.11(b)) delay application should be heard mid-trial
  2. 2 Whether hearing the application mid-trial would produce time savings or unjustifiable disruption
  3. 3 Whether there is a need for a complete underlying factual record before adjudicating a delay claim

Ratio Decidendi

The judge exercised discretion to refuse a mid-trial hearing of the s.11(b) Jordan application because none of the exceptional policy considerations favoring mid-trial adjudication were present, there were no court-implicated or ongoing constitutional violations requiring immediate attention, no demonstrated time savings, and a mid-trial hearing would disrupt and likely extend the trial and deny the benefit of a more complete underlying factual record.

Court Disposition

Application to hear the Jordan (s.11(b)) delay application mid-trial denied; trial continuation dates will be used to complete the Crown’s case; Jordan application may be heard on some or all of May 29, 2017, May 31, 2017 and June 1, 2017 but decision will be reserved until after conclusion of the trial.

Orders

  • Existing trial continuation dates to be used for continuation of the trial as scheduled
  • Defendants’ Jordan application not to be heard on April 18-19, 2017; application may be scheduled on some or all of May 29, 2017, May 31, 2017 and June 1, 2017