R v. Ivy Fisheries

R v. Ivy Fisheries

Total delay (24 months) was apportioned: 16 months inherent to the complexity of the case, one week attributable to the defence, and the remainder attributable to Crown actions and institutional delay; prejudice to the accused was minimal and not sufficient to render the delay one of the "clearest of cases" requiring a stay, therefore the stay application was denied.

Citation
2004 NSPC 2
Parties
Crown/prosecution: R.; Defendant(s): Ivy Fisheries et al
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 January 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal (regulatory Summary Conviction) Charter S.11(b) Delay Application / Application for Stay of Proceedings Under S.11(b) Heard After Trial Commencement and Adjournments; Decision on January 8, 2004
Outcome
Defence application for a stay of proceedings under s.11(b) of the Charter denied.
Legal Topics
S.11(b) Unreasonable Delay, Stay of Proceedings Under S.24, Abuse of Process, Disclosure Obligations, Institutional Delay
Source Language
English
Constitutional/charter Law Criminal Procedure Administrative/regulatory Law S.11(b) Unreasonable Delay Stay of Proceedings Under S.24 Abuse of Process Disclosure Obligations Institutional Delay

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.

Crown/prosecution

Ivy Fisheries et al

Defendant(s)

Procedural Posture

Criminal (regulatory Summary Conviction) Charter S.11(b) Delay Application / Application for Stay of Proceedings Under S.11(b) Heard After Trial Commencement and Adjournments; Decision on January 8, 2004

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay from charge to trial was unreasonable under s.11(b) of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether the defence waived delay
  3. 3 How to allocate delay between inherent, Crown, defence and institutional causes

Ratio Decidendi

Total delay (24 months) was apportioned: 16 months inherent to the complexity of the case, one week attributable to the defence, and the remainder attributable to Crown actions and institutional delay; prejudice to the accused was minimal and not sufficient to render the delay one of the "clearest of cases" requiring a stay, therefore the stay application was denied.

Court Disposition

Defence application for a stay of proceedings under s.11(b) of the Charter denied.

Orders

  • Application for stay of proceedings denied