R. v. J.G.B., 66 OAC 235

• Judge: Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 08, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 66 OAC 235;(1993), 66 O.A.C. 235 (SCC);[1993] 3 SCR 641;1993 CanLII 80 (SCC);1993 CanLII 81 (SCC);[1993] 3 SCR 643

R. v. J.G.B. (1993), 66 O.A.C. 235 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

J.G.B. (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(23320)

Indexed As: R. v. J.G.B.

Supreme Court of Canada

Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

October 8, 1993.

Summary:

The accused was charged in November 1989 with multiple sexual offences. The trial date was scheduled for 31 months later. The accused applied, before trial, for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter on the ground that his right to be tried within a reasonable time (s. 11(b)) was denied. The trial judge granted a stay. The Crown appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a judg­ment reported 58 O.A.C. 169, allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for trial. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Ac­cused's right to - "Within a reasonable time" - What constitutes - The accused was charged in November 1989 with mul­tiple sexual offences - The trial date was fixed for 31 months later - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in granting a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter - The accused's right to be tried within a reason­able time under s. 11(b) was not denied - The accused waived three months of the delay - Seven months were neutral - Thirteen months of the delay were attribu­table to the accused in attempting to obtain the com­plainant's file from the Children's Aid Society - Accordingly, only eight months of the delay was institutional and that was reasonable - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the delay was not unreason­able.

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. 1].

R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199; 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 79 C.R.(3d) 273; 49 C.R.R. 1; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 355; 75 O.R.(2d) 673, appld. [para. 1].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 11(b) [para. 1].

Counsel:

Alan D. Gold, for the appellant;

Ian R. Smith, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On October 8, 1993, Iacobucci, J., delivered the following judgment in both official languages orally for the Supreme Court of Canada.