R. v. Murdock
- Citation
- [1992] 2 SCR 164
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 4 June 1992
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal (charter S.11(b) Trial Within a Reasonable Time) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Ontario Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 4 June 1992
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal (charter S.11(b) Trial Within a Reasonable Time) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Ontario Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Applying the Morin framework, the Court held the delay in this case was not unreasonable; the stay of proceedings was not warranted and the appellant's appeal was dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; delay held not unreasonable.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Stay of proceedings set aside
02
Material facts
Parties
Terrance Murdock
Appellant Counsel: Christopher McAvineyHer Majesty The Queen
Respondent Counsel: Scott C. Hutchison; David G. AlgieAmounts and remedies
- Case Number: 22,632
- Decision Year: 1,992
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal (charter S.11(b) Trial Within a Reasonable Time) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Ontario Court of Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the delay violated s.11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time
- 02
Whether a stay of proceedings was an appropriate remedy for delay
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant argued that the delay between charge and trial was unreasonable under s.11(b) of the Charter and that a stay of proceedings was required.
- Respondent
- Crown argued the delay was not unreasonable under the Morin framework and that the stay ordered by the trial judge should be set aside.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771
Test for unreasonable delay as set out in R. v. Morin
- 02
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms s.11(b)
Right to be tried within a reasonable time
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Applying the Morin framework, the Court held the delay in this case was not unreasonable; the stay of proceedings was not warranted and the appellant's appeal was dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; delay held not unreasonable.
- Appeal dismissed
- Stay of proceedings set aside
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 4 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· 4 June 1992
R. v. Murdock Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1992-06-04 Report [1992] 2 SCR 164 Case number 22632 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: 22632 Decision Content R. v. Murdock, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 164 Terrance Murdock Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Murdock File No.: 22632. 1992: June 4. 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 rendered September 5, 1991 allowing the Crown's appeal from a stay of proceedings ordered by Beaulne Prov. Ct. J. Appeal dismissed. Christopher McAviney, for the appellant. Scott C. Hutchison and David G. Algie, 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. Hutchison. The Court is ready to hand down judgment. The judgment will be pronounced by Mr. Justice Sopinka. //Sopinka J.// Sopinka J. ‑‑ This appeal, which is here as of right, is governed by the principles expressed by this Court in R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771, released March 26, 1992. Applying those principles, we agree with the conclusion of the Court of Appeal that the delay in this case was not unreasonable. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Judgment accordingly. Solicitor for the appellant: Christopher R. McAviney, Ottawa. 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.