R. v. Bennett
- Citation
- [1992] 2 SCR 168
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 5 June 1992
- Posture
- Charter Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 5 June 1992
- Posture
- Charter Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Applying the Morin factors, the Court concluded the delay was not unreasonable and dismissed the appellant's appeal, rejecting the appellant's emphasis on statistical evidence.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
02
Material facts
Parties
Reginald Bennett
Appellant Counsel: Melvyn GreenHer Majesty the Queen
Respondent Counsel: David ButtAmounts and remedies
- Case Number: 22,532
03
Procedural history
Posture
Charter Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the delay violated s.11(b) of the Charter
- 02
Proper application of the Morin framework to assess delay
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued the delay was unreasonable, relying on statistical evidence to demonstrate a breach of s.11(b) and that the trial judge should have stayed the proceedings.
- Respondent
- The Crown argued the Morin factors demonstrated the delay was not unreasonable and that the Court of Appeal correctly overturned the stay.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771
Framework for analyzing s.11(b) delays: factors to consider including length, explanation, prejudice and waiver
- 02
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms s.11(b)
Accused's right to trial within a reasonable time guaranteed by s.11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Applying the Morin factors, the Court concluded the delay was not unreasonable and dismissed the appellant's appeal, rejecting the appellant's emphasis on statistical evidence.
Obiter and limits
- The Court cautioned against overemphasis on statistics in s.11(b) analysis
- The Morin principles govern the assessment of delay in Charter s.11(b) cases
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
- Appeal dismissed
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 5 June 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· 5 June 1992
R. v. Bennett Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1992-06-05 Report [1992] 2 SCR 168 Case number 22532 Judges L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Sopinka, John; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; McLachlin, Beverley; Iacobucci, Frank On appeal from Ontario Subjects Constitutional law Notes SCC Case Information: 22532 Decision Content R. v. Bennett, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 168 Reginald Bennett Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Bennett File No.: 22532. 1992: June 5. Present: L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights ‑‑ Trial within a reasonable time ‑‑ Delay in this case not unreasonable. Cases Cited Applied: R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R.
771. APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1991), 3 O.R. (3d) 193, 46 O.A.C. 99, 64 C.C.C. (3d) 449, 6 C.R. (4th) 22, 7 C.R.R. (2d) 145, allowing the Crown's appeal from a stay of proceedings ordered by Stortini J. (1990), 11 W.C.B. (2d) 461. Appeal dismissed. Melvyn Green, for the appellant. David Butt, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by //L'Heureux-Dubé J.// L'Heureux‑Dubé 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 Sopinka. //Sopinka J.// Sopinka J. ‑‑ This appeal as of right is governed by the principles expressed in R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771, released March 26, 1992. We do not share the views of the appellant with respect to the emphasis placed on statistics. Applying the factors in Morin, we agree with the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeal that there was no unreasonable delay in this case. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Ruby & Edwardh, Toronto. Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General for Ontario, 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.