R. v. Gorges
The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that the total 33 month delay amounted to an unreasonable delay under s.11(b), that the delay was largely institutional and attributable to the preliminary inquiry judge, assignment court judge, trial coordinators and counsel, and that the appropriate remedy was to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C39252
- Parties
- Appellant: Her Majesty the Queen; Respondent: Zuhair (Zoher) Gorges; Respondent: Rabih Saleh; Respondent: Goran Dresic
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 3 March 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal From Stay of Proceedings Under S.11(b) of the Charter / Court of Appeal Decision (hearing and Oral Release)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; stay of proceedings upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Section 11(b) Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Delay, Stay of Proceedings, Institutional Delay, Adjournment
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Appellant
Zuhair (Zoher) Gorges
Respondent
Rabih Saleh
Respondent
Goran Dresic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal From Stay of Proceedings Under S.11(b) of the Charter / Court of Appeal Decision (hearing and Oral Release)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a 33 month delay breached s.11(b) of the Charter
- 2 Whether institutional delay attributable to courts and counsel justified a stay
- 3 Whether the trial judge erred in concluding a culture of accepted delay existed
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that the total 33 month delay amounted to an unreasonable delay under s.11(b), that the delay was largely institutional and attributable to the preliminary inquiry judge, assignment court judge, trial coordinators and counsel, and that the appropriate remedy was to uphold the stay; the Crown's appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; stay of proceedings upheld.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed and stay of proceedings remains in effect.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Gorges Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2004-03-03 Docket numbers C39252 Judges Feldman, Kathryn N.; Sharpe, Robert J.; McCombs, John David Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20040303 DOCKET: C39252 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Appellant) - and - ZUHAIR (ZOHER) GORGES, RABIH SALEH AND GORAN DRESIC (Respondents) BEFORE: FELDMAN, SHARPE JJ.A. and McCOMBS J. (ad hoc) COUNSEL: Riun Shandler For the appellant Jennifer Gleitman For Goran Dresic Zuhair Gorges In person HEARD: March 1, 2004 RELEASED ORALLY: March 1, 2004 On appeal from the order staying the proceedings by Justice John H. Brockenshire of the Superior Court of Justice, dated November 15, 2002. ENDORSEMENT [1] The Crown appeals from the decision of the trial judge to stay the charges against the respondents on the basis that the respondents' s. 11(b) rights were breached when the total delay between the charges and the trial date was thirty-three months. We agree with the conclusion reached by the trial judge. [2] At the outset of the trial the Crown conceded that there was no express waiver of their s. 11(b) rights by the defendants and that the thirty-three month delay required an inquiry. The trial judge focused on the institutional delay caused by the failure of the preliminary inquiry judge, by the trial judge himself as the assignment court judge, by the relevant trial coordinators and by all counsel involved in failing at each point along the way to address the delay issue before setting dates several months ahead in order to accommodate the schedules of counsel or the court. [3] In our view, the trial judge was correct, both in his conclusion that this case reflected a culture that accepted delays as inevitable rather than recognizing that dates must be set in order to accommodate s. 11(b) and to ensure that the trial date is reached within a reasonable time, and in his observation that the previously accepted lengthy adjournment delays are now completely unacceptable. [4] We would therefore dismiss the appeal. Signed: "K. Feldman J.A." "Robert J. Sharpe J.A." "D. McCombs J. (ad hoc)"