R v Graham

R v Graham

After deducting 55 days for defence-caused delay and 142 days for a discrete pandemic-related adjournment, the adjusted delay (874 days, 29 months) exceeded the 18-month provincial-court ceiling in Jordan; the prosecution failed to rebut the resulting presumption of unreasonableness with sufficient exceptional circumstances, and consent to court scheduling did not constitute waiver, therefore a stay of proceedings under s.11(b) was required.

Citation
2022 NSPC 10
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Angela Michelle Graham
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal S.11(b) Charter Application / Pre Trial Stay Application
Outcome
Application granted; stay of proceedings entered in respect of both counts
Legal Topics
Speedy Trial, S.11(b) Charter, Jordan Framework, Stay of Proceedings, Pandemic Exceptional Circumstances, Disclosure
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Procedural Law Speedy Trial S.11(b) Charter Jordan Framework Stay of Proceedings Pandemic Exceptional Circumstances +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Angela Michelle Graham

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal S.11(b) Charter Application / Pre Trial Stay Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Application of R v Jordan speedy-trial framework
  2. 2 Calculation of total and adjusted delay
  3. 3 Determination of defence delay and waiver

Ratio Decidendi

After deducting 55 days for defence-caused delay and 142 days for a discrete pandemic-related adjournment, the adjusted delay (874 days, 29 months) exceeded the 18-month provincial-court ceiling in Jordan; the prosecution failed to rebut the resulting presumption of unreasonableness with sufficient exceptional circumstances, and consent to court scheduling did not constitute waiver, therefore a stay of proceedings under s.11(b) was required.

Court Disposition

Application granted; stay of proceedings entered in respect of both counts

Orders

  • Stay of proceedings ordered in relation to both counts (Criminal Code s.140(1) and s.334(b))
  • All related processes terminated