R. v. Bailey (S.W.), (1998) 71 O.T.C. 259 (GD)

• Judge: Minden, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: March 02, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1998), 71 O.T.C. 259 (GD)

R. v. Bailey (S.W.) (1998), 71 O.T.C. 259 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] O.T.C. TBEd. JL.124

Her Majesty the Queen v. Stephen W. Bailey

Indexed As: R. v. Bailey (S.W.)

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Whitby

Minden, J.

May 25, 1998.

Summary:

On January 16, 1996 the accused was charged with, inter alia, impaired driving. The matter was in Provincial Division for ten and one half months and then in General Division for 15 months. The Crown had tried to obtain evidence from an insurance company, resulting in several adjournments. The accused applied for a stay of proceedings, arguing that there was an unreasonable delay resulting from (1) the Crown's failure to make timely disclosure of the insurance company's evidence (causing a five month delay), and (2) the adjournment of a trial date because the presiding judge took early retirement due to medical problems and no replacement was available. The accused alleged that he was prejudiced by the delays.

The Ontario Court (General Division) dismissed the application. There was a three and one half month delay resulting from the disclosure problem. The delay due to the adjourned trial date was not a systemic or institutional delay. The accused was prejudiced by the delay, but it was not of great significance. The delay did not reach constitutional limits.

Civil Rights - Topic 3130

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Delay - See paragraphs 1 to 44.

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - What constitutes "within a reasonable time" - See paragraphs 1 to 44.

Civil Rights - Topic 3270

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - Evidence of prejudice and causes of delay - See paragraphs 33 to 39.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771; 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 1, appld. [para. 3].

R. v. Bailey (R.) (1996), 23 O.T.C. 305 (Gen. Div.), appld. [para. 27].

R. v. Kristoff, [1995] O.J. No. 3842 (Gen. Div.), appld. [para. 28].

R. v. Goodine (1992), 112 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 307 A.P.R. 1; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 146 (C.A.), appld. [para. 30].

R. v. Sharma, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 814; 134 N.R. 368; 53 O.A.C. 288; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 184; 12 C.R.(4th) 45, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. J.G.B. (1992), 58 O.A.C. 169; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 112 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Power (E.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601; 165 N.R. 241; 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 365 A.P.R. 269; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 29 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 43].

Counsel:

John D. Scott, Q.C., for the Crown;

John F. Adamson, for the accused.

This application was heard on March 2, 1998, at Whitby, Ontario, by Minden, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who delivered the following decision at New Market, Ontario, on May 25, 1998.