Franklin v. The Queen
- Citation
- [1985] 1 SCR 293
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 4 April 1985
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Ontario Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 4 April 1985
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Ontario Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court held that a trial court acting on an indictment does not lose jurisdiction merely because it fails to proceed at the time fixed for trial; jurisdiction is only lost in the presence of unconstitutional conduct, and the setting of trial dates is not purely administrative.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Ronald Arthur Franklin
Appellant Counsel: John A. HowlettHer Majesty The Queen
Respondent Counsel: Michael R. DambrotAmounts and remedies
- Case Number: 17,484
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Ontario Court of Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether a trial court acting on an indictment loses jurisdiction when it fails to proceed at the time fixed for trial
- 02
Whether the setting of trial dates is purely administrative and can give rise to prohibition
- 03
Whether R. v. Krannenburg applies to magistrate trials under Parts XVI or XXIV of the Criminal Code
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The accused argued that failure to proceed at the session for which trial was fixed divested the court of jurisdiction and entitled the accused to prohibition; the setting of trial dates was characterized as administrative and could not validate continuation of the trial.
- Respondent
- The Crown argued that no loss of jurisdiction occurs when a trial court acting on an indictment fails to proceed at the time set for trial absent unconstitutional conduct; reasonable procedural latitude is acceptable in indictment proceedings and R. v. Krannenburg applies to magistrates under Parts XVI or XXIV of the Criminal Code.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Franklin v. The Queen, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 293
Failure to proceed at the time fixed for trial does not divest jurisdiction over an indictment absent unconstitutional conduct.
- 02
R. v. Krannenburg, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1053
R. v. Krannenburg is applicable to trials held by magistrates sitting under Parts XVI or XXIV of the Criminal Code.
- 03
R. v. Chabot, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 985
Reasonable procedural latitude is desirable in proceedings pursuant to indictment.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court held that a trial court acting on an indictment does not lose jurisdiction merely because it fails to proceed at the time fixed for trial; jurisdiction is only lost in the presence of unconstitutional conduct, and the setting of trial dates is not purely administrative.
Obiter and limits
- The setting of trial dates should not be characterized as purely administrative in nature.
- R. v. Krannenburg applies to magistrates sitting under Parts XVI or XXIV of the Criminal Code.
- Reasonable procedural latitude should be afforded in indictment proceedings.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed.
- Appeal dismissed.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 4 April 1985
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 4 April 1985
Franklin v. The Queen Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1985-04-04 Report [1985] 1 SCR 293 Case number 17484 Judges Dickson, Robert George Brian; Estey, Willard Zebedee; Chouinard, Julien; Lamer, Antonio; Wilson, Bertha; Le Dain, Gerald Eric; La Forest, Gérard V. On appeal from Ontario Subjects Criminal law Notes SCC Case Information: 17484 Decision Content Franklin v. The Queen, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 293 Ronald Arthur Franklin Appellant; and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent. File No.: 17484. 1985: March 14; 1985: April 4. Present: Dickson C.J. and Estey, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario Criminal law ‑‑ Courts ‑‑ Jurisdiction ‑‑ Court of General Sessions of the Peace ‑‑ Trial not proceeding at sessions for which trial fixed ‑‑ Jurisdiction over indictment not lost. Cases Cited R. v. Krannenburg, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1053, considered; R. v. Chabot, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 985, referred to. APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1982), 40 O.R. (2d) 647, 2 C.C.C. (3d) 232, allowing the Crown's appeal from a judgment of Hughes J. (1982), 37 O.R. (2d) 454, 67 C.C.C. (2d) 483, allowing the accused's application for prohibition. Appeal dismissed. John A. Howlett, for the appellant. Michael R. Dambrot, for the respondent. The following is the judgment delivered by 1. The Court‑‑We are all of the view that this appeal should fail. The decision of this Court in R. v. Krannenburg, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1053, is applicable for trials held by magistrates sitting under Parts XVI or XXIV of the Criminal Code .
2. We do not agree, however, with the Ontario Court of Appeal's characterization of the setting of trial dates as administrative in nature. As this Court noted in R. v. Chabot, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 985, reasonable procedural latitude is desirable in proceedings pursuant to indictment. There will be no loss of jurisdiction when a trial court, acting on an indictment, fails to proceed at the time set for trial, absent unconstitutional conduct.
3. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Solicitor for the appellant: John A. Howlett, Toronto. Solicitor for the respondent: R. Tassé, Ottawa.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.