R. v. Dunphy

Parties

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution / Application for Stay of Proceedings Under S.24(1) Charter Alleging Breach of S.11(b) Delay Right (preliminary Inquiry and Trial Scheduling)

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether the accused's s.11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time was breached by Crown and institutional delay
2. 2 Whether delay should attract a stay of proceedings
3. 3 Whether delay is attributable to Crown, accused, or institutional resources

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the pre-trial delay was largely attributable to Crown and institutional factors, specifically the Crown's failure to provide timely s.540 notice and late disclosure of an expert report; the delay exceeded the applicable presumptive ceiling under R. v. Jordan and the Crown did not establish exceptional circumstances to rebut the presumption, therefore the s.11(b) right was breached and a stay of proceedings was required.

Court Disposition

Stay of proceedings entered

Orders

• Stay of proceedings entered on the basis of unreasonable delay under s.11(b) of the Charter
• Proceedings stayed due to Crown and institutional delay including failure to provide timely s.540 notice and late expert disclosure