R. v. Routledge

R. v. Routledge

After allocating periods of delay to inherent intake, Crown action, institutional scheduling and defence waiver, and balancing institutional delay (within or close to Morin guideline), limited Crown attributable delay, absence of proven specific prejudice and instances of waiver, the judge concluded s.11(b) was not breached and dismissed the stay application.

Citation
2010 NSPC 45
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Darryl Todd Routledge; Defendant: James Della Valle; Defendant: Joseph Darrell McNeil
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Proceedings Under Charter S.11(b) / Pre Trial / Charter S.11(b) Hearing
Outcome
Application for stay dismissed; no breach of s.11(b) found
Legal Topics
Delay Under S.11(b), Stay of Proceedings, Disclosure, Institutional Delay, Waiver, Prejudice
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Procedure Occupational Health and Safety Law Delay Under S.11(b) Stay of Proceedings Disclosure Institutional Delay Waiver +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Darryl Todd Routledge

Defendant

James Della Valle

Defendant

Joseph Darrell McNeil

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay of Proceedings Under Charter S.11(b) / Pre Trial / Charter S.11(b) Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay violated s.11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time
  2. 2 How to allocate segments of delay between Crown, defence and institutional causes
  3. 3 Whether any waiver of time periods occurred

Ratio Decidendi

After allocating periods of delay to inherent intake, Crown action, institutional scheduling and defence waiver, and balancing institutional delay (within or close to Morin guideline), limited Crown attributable delay, absence of proven specific prejudice and instances of waiver, the judge concluded s.11(b) was not breached and dismissed the stay application.

Court Disposition

Application for stay dismissed; no breach of s.11(b) found

Orders

  • Stay application dismissed