R. v. Atkinson
- Citation
- [1992] 3 SCR 465
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 2 November 1992
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal Under the Charter / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 2 November 1992
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal Under the Charter / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The delay did not constitute an unreasonable infringement of the appellants' s.11(b) rights given the significant complexity of the case; accordingly the stay of proceedings was not justified and the appeal dismissing the stay was upheld.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Order expediting the trial
02
Material facts
Parties
George William Atkinson
Appellant Counsel: Alan D. GoldErnest Gordon Atkinson
Appellant Counsel: Bruce DuncanHer Majesty The Queen
Respondent Counsel: David ButtAmounts and remedies
- File Number: 22,691
- File Number: 22,738
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal Under the Charter / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the accused's right to be tried within a reasonable time under s.11(b) of the Charter was infringed
- 02
How case complexity affects the s.11(b) delay analysis
- 03
Whether the appellants waived their right to complain of delay
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellants argued their right to be tried within a reasonable time was breached by excessive delay and sought a stay of proceedings.
- Respondent
- The Crown argued there was no infringement because the delay was justified by the complexity of the case and that the appellants' conduct raised issues of waiver.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms s.11(b); Supreme Court of Canada reasoning
Assessment of delay under s.11(b) must take into account the inherent complexity of the case as a relevant factor in determining reasonableness of delay.
- 02
Common law principles as applied by the Supreme Court of Canada
A waiver of Charter rights requires clear and unequivocal evidence and careful scrutiny of the facts.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The delay did not constitute an unreasonable infringement of the appellants' s.11(b) rights given the significant complexity of the case; accordingly the stay of proceedings was not justified and the appeal dismissing the stay was upheld.
Obiter and limits
- The Court indicated it might not agree with the Court of Appeal's reasons on waiver even though it agreed with their overall result.
- An order was directed to expedite the trial, reflecting the Court's concern for timely disposition despite rejecting the stay.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
- Appeal dismissed
- Order expediting the trial
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 2 November 1992
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· 2 November 1992
R. v. Atkinson Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1992-11-02 Report [1992] 3 SCR 465 Case number 22691, 22738 Judges La Forest, Gérard V.; Sopinka, John; Cory, Peter deCarteret; McLachlin, Beverley; Iacobucci, Frank On appeal from Ontario Subjects Constitutional law Notes SCC Case Information: 22691, 22738 Decision Content R. v. Atkinson, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 465 George William Atkinson and Ernest Gordon Atkinson Appellants v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Atkinson File Nos.: 22691, 22738. 1992: November 2. Present: La Forest, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights ‑‑ Trial within a reasonable time ‑‑ Right of accused to be tried within a reasonable time not infringed. APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1991), 5 O.R. (3d) 301, 50 O.A.C. 48, 68 C.C.C. (3d) 109, allowing the Crown's appeal from an order staying proceedings. Appeal dismissed. Alan D. Gold, for the appellant George William Atkinson. Bruce Duncan, for the appellant Ernest Gordon Atkinson. David Butt, for the respondent. //La Forest J.// The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by La Forest J. ‑‑ It will not be necessary to hear from you Mr. Butt. The Court is ready to hand down judgment. The judgment will be pronounced by Mr. Justice Cory. //Cory J.// Cory J. ‑‑ It may be that we
would not agree with the reasons of the Court of Appeal on the issue of waiver. However we are in substantial agreement with the balance of their reasoning and the result they reached. Clearly the complexity of this case is an important factor that must be taken into account in considering the question of delay. In the circumstances the appeal will be dismissed and an order will go expediting the trial. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant George William Atkinson: Gold & Fuerst, Toronto. Solicitors for the appellant Ernest Gordon Atkinson: Duncan, Fava & Schermbrucker, Toronto. Solicitor for the respondent: The Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto.
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.