R. v. T.Y.

R. v. T.Y.

After allocating time for intake and reasonable disclosure (11 months), attributing certain delays to the defence (20 months) but finding an additional approximately 9.5 months solely attributable to the Crown and otherwise unexplained, and given the total 40.5 month delay together with unchallenged affidavit evidence of prejudice, the court concluded the delay was unreasonable under s.11(b) and that a stay of proceedings under s.24 was the appropriate remedy.

Citation
2010 NSPC 41
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: T.Y.
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Youth Justice / Application for Stay of Proceedings (s.24 Charter Application)
Outcome
Stay of proceedings entered
Legal Topics
S.11(b) Right to Be Tried Within a Reasonable Time, S.24 Remedy Stay of Proceedings, Disclosure Obligations, Third Party Records (s.278.3), Delay Attribution and Institutional Delay
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Charter Law Youth Justice Procedural Law S.11(b) Right to Be Tried Within a Reasonable Time S.24 Remedy Stay of Proceedings Disclosure Obligations Third Party Records (s.278.3) +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

T.Y.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Youth Justice / Application for Stay of Proceedings (s.24 Charter Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 40.5 month delay infringed s.11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time
  2. 2 Whether a stay of proceedings is an appropriate remedy under s.24 of the Charter
  3. 3 How to attribute portions of delay among Crown, defence and systemic causes

Ratio Decidendi

After allocating time for intake and reasonable disclosure (11 months), attributing certain delays to the defence (20 months) but finding an additional approximately 9.5 months solely attributable to the Crown and otherwise unexplained, and given the total 40.5 month delay together with unchallenged affidavit evidence of prejudice, the court concluded the delay was unreasonable under s.11(b) and that a stay of proceedings under s.24 was the appropriate remedy.

Court Disposition

Stay of proceedings entered

Orders

  • Stay of proceedings entered pursuant to s.24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (decision dated May 24, 2010)