R. v. Stuart

R. v. Stuart

Police did not make reasonable, diligent efforts to execute the warrant (failed to follow-up addresses, phone numbers, leads and relied on infrequent CPIC checks); the resulting 58.5 month delay was not an exceptional circumstance under Jordan nor justified under the pre-Jordan framework; prejudice is inferred from the excessive delay; s.11(b) breached and a stay of proceedings is warranted.

Citation
2017 NSPC 62
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Ernest Andrew Stuart
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal S.11(b) Charter Application for Stay of Proceedings / Pre Trial Application (judicial Stay Sought)
Outcome
Application for stay of proceedings granted; charges stayed.
Legal Topics
Unreasonable Delay, Stay of Proceedings, Warrant Execution, Transitional Application of Jordan
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Pre Trial Procedure Unreasonable Delay Stay of Proceedings Warrant Execution Transitional Application of Jordan

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Ernest Andrew Stuart

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal S.11(b) Charter Application for Stay of Proceedings / Pre Trial Application (judicial Stay Sought)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay between obtaining and executing the warrant (Jan 23, 2013 to Jan 23, 2017) constitutes an exceptional circumstance under Jordan
  2. 2 Whether pre-arrest delay is acceptable under the pre-Jordan (Morin) framework in a transitional case
  3. 3 Whether the police made reasonable and diligent efforts to execute the warrant and locate the accused

Ratio Decidendi

Police did not make reasonable, diligent efforts to execute the warrant (failed to follow-up addresses, phone numbers, leads and relied on infrequent CPIC checks); the resulting 58.5 month delay was not an exceptional circumstance under Jordan nor justified under the pre-Jordan framework; prejudice is inferred from the excessive delay; s.11(b) breached and a stay of proceedings is warranted.

Court Disposition

Application for stay of proceedings granted; charges stayed.

Orders

  • Stay of proceedings entered
  • All charges stayed