R. v. J. (M.A.)
- Citation
- [1992] 2 SCR 166
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 5 June 1992
- Posture
- Supreme Court Appeal (criminal/constitutional; Young Offenders) / Appeal From Ontario Court of Appeal; Judgment on Appeal as of Right
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 5 June 1992
- Posture
- Supreme Court Appeal (criminal/constitutional; Young Offenders) / Appeal From Ontario Court of Appeal; Judgment on Appeal as of Right
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Applying the Morin factors and giving weight to the societal interest in prompt youth prosecutions, the Court found the delay was not unreasonable and therefore dismissed the appellant's appeal and refused the stay.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Application to adduce fresh evidence dismissed.
- Application for costs dismissed on the respondent's undertaking to support any application for funding by the appellant.
02
Material facts
Parties
M.A.J.
Appellant Counsel: Frank Addario; Brian WeagantHer Majesty the Queen
Respondent Counsel: C. Jane Arnup; David Butt03
Procedural history
Posture
Supreme Court Appeal (criminal/constitutional; Young Offenders) / Appeal From Ontario Court of Appeal; Judgment on Appeal as of Right
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the delay violated the right to be tried within a reasonable time under the Charter (s.11(b))
- 02
Whether the societal interest in expeditious youth proceedings affects the s.11(b) analysis
- 03
Whether a stay of proceedings was an appropriate remedy for any delay
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued the delay in proceeding was unreasonable under the Charter and warranted a stay of proceedings; relied on the framework for s.11(b) analysis.
- Respondent
- The Crown argued the delay was not unreasonable when assessed under this Court's Morin framework and that the societal interest in expeditious youth proceedings under the Young Offenders Act weighed against a stay.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Right to be tried within a reasonable time under s.11(b) of the Charter
- 02
R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771
Factors and analytical framework for assessing delay set out in R. v. Morin
- 03
Young Offenders Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. Y-1; R. v. Morin
Societal interest in proceeding expeditiously with youth charges is a relevant factor in weighing prejudice and public interest
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Applying the Morin factors and giving weight to the societal interest in prompt youth prosecutions, the Court found the delay was not unreasonable and therefore dismissed the appellant's appeal and refused the stay.
Obiter and limits
- The Morin decision governs appeals as of right on the issue of reasonable time
- Societal interest in expeditious youth proceedings is an important factor in s.11(b) analysis
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed.
- Appeal dismissed.
- Application to adduce fresh evidence dismissed.
- Application for costs dismissed on the respondent's undertaking to support any application for funding by the appellant.
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. J. (M.A.) Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1992-06-05 Report [1992] 2 SCR 166 Case number 22531 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: 22531 Decision Content R. v. J. (M.A.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 166 M.A.J. Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. J. (M.A.) File No.: 22531. 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 -‑ Young offenders ‑‑ Societal interest in proceeding expeditiously with charges under Young Offenders Act -- Delay in this case not unreasonable. Cases Cited Applied: R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R.
771. Statutes and Regulations Cited Young Offenders Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. Y‑1 . APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1991), 3 O.R. (3d) 241, 46 O.A.C. 136, allowing the Crown's appeal from a stay of proceedings ordered by Bradley Prov. Ct. J. Appeal dismissed. Frank Addario and Brian Weagant, for the appellant. C. Jane Arnup and 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 Ms. Arnup. 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 this Court's decision in R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771, released March 26, 1992. Taking into account the factors referred to in Morin, including the societal interest in proceeding expeditiously with charges under the Young Offenders Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. Y-1 , we agree with the Court of Appeal that there was no unreasonable delay in this case. The appeal is therefore dismissed. The application to adduce fresh evidence is dismissed. The application for costs is dismissed on the undertaking of the respondent to support any application for funding by the appellant. Judgment accordingly. Solicitor for the appellant: Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth & the Law, 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.