R. v. Mills, (1986) 67 N.R. 241 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and La Forest, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 26, 1986
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1986), 67 N.R. 241 (SCC);[1986] 1 SCR 863;1986 CanLII 17 (SCC);58 OR (2d) 543;29 DLR (4th) 161;26 CCC (3d) 481;52 CR (3d) 1;67 NR 241;JE 86-709;[1986] SCJ No 39 (QL);16 OAC 81;17 WCB 41;[1986] ACS no 39;21 CRR 76

R. v. Mills (1986), 67 N.R. 241 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

R. v. Mills

(No. 17818)

Indexed As: R. v. Mills

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and La Forest, JJ.

June 26, 1986.

Summary:

The accused was charged with a recent robbery in March 1977. He was arrested in October 1979. His first court appearance was in September 1981 and his preliminary inquiry began in May 1982 in the Ontario Provincial Court. At the preliminary inquiry the accused moved for a stay of proceedings for common law abuse of process and for denial of his right to trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which had come into effect a month before. The Crown acknowledged that its negligent inaction caused 10 months of the 19 month delay.

The Provincial Court judge in a judgment reported 2 C.R.R. 300 ruled that he was a court of competent jurisdiction under s. 24(1) of the Charter for purposes of seeking relief for breach of Charter rights, but denied the motion on the grounds that the Charter did not apply to pre-Charter charges and that he had no jurisdiction to stay for abuse of process.

The accused applied for prohibition and certiorari to the Ontario High Court to quash the information and for relief under s. 24(1) of the Charter for violation of s. 11(b).

The Ontario High Court in a judgment reported 2 C.C.C.(3d) 444 dismissed the application. The court held that the preliminary inquiry judge was a court of competent jurisdiction, but that on the merits there had been no unreasonable delay. The accused appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal in a judgment reported 7 C.C.C.(3d) 573 dismissed the appeal and refused to disturb the judgment of the Ontario High Court on the merits. The Court of Appeal did not rule on whether the preliminary inquiry judge was a court of competent jurisdiction. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada per McIntyre, J., (Beetz and Chouinard, JJ., concurring) and La Forest, J., dismissed the appeal. The court held that the preliminary inquiry judge was not a court of competent jurisdiction under s. 24(1) of the Charter and had no jurisdiction to entertain the accused's motion for relief under s. 24(1) for alleged violation of his right to trial within a reasonable time. Thus the matter was returned to the preliminary inquiry judge for continuation of the preliminary inquiry. The court held that the accused's motion for relief should be made, if necessary, to his trial judge, who would be a court of competent jurisdiction.

The court stated that because the Charter did not define what a court of competent jurisdiction was and granted no power to assign jurisdiction to any court, a court of competent jurisdiction therefore must be found in the existing Canadian judicial structure.

The court held that a preliminary inquiry judge was not a court of competent jurisdiction under s. 24(1) of the Charter, because he had no power of disposition over the charge against the accused. He had no power to consider a remedy under s. 24 of the Charter, including the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2).

The court held that criminal courts other than provincial superior courts, such as summary provincial courts and magistrates, are courts of competent jurisdiction when acting in their trial capacity and have jurisdiction to grant relief under the Charter. However, such courts have no jurisdiction over prerogative relief.

The court held that provincial and territorial superior courts are courts of competent jurisdiction both in their capacity as trial courts and in their jurisdiction over prerogative relief.

The court stated that in most cases relief should be sought from the trial judge under existing procedure, including pre-trial motions. If no trial court has been designated over the charge, prerogative relief should be sought from the provincial superior court.

The court held that appeals respecting s. 24 relief should follow existing procedural rules and the usual rule against interlocutory appeals prevailed.

The court rejected the notion that breach of Charter rights was necessarily jurisdictional error. The remedy of prerogative relief from jurisdictional error was still open, but was separate and distinct from an application for relief under s. 24. The court stated that it was up to the courts in their wide and unfettered jurisdiction under s. 24 to devise imaginative relief for breach of Charter rights, including unreasonable delay, and that a stay was not the only appropriate remedy for unreasonable delay.

Lamer, J., (Dickson, C.J.C., concurring) dissented and was of the opinion that a stay should be granted, although acknowledging that the preliminary inquiry judge was not a court of competent jurisdiction. Lamer, J., was of the opinion that a stay should be granted as a minimum remedy for unreasonable delay, which went to jurisdiction and for which prerogative relief was available. He agreed, however, that not all Charter violations were jurisdictional.

Lamer, J., also extensively discussed the nature and purpose of s. 11(b) of the Charter respecting the right to trial within a reasonable time and the nature and elements of the balancing test of reasonableness of delay. He opined that prejudice to the accused should be presumed from delay to invoke a remedy under s. 24. He suggested that the test was an objective one and that, therefore, one element, institutional causes of delay, should not justify delay. Recognizing that some areas of Canada may not be capable of meeting an objective standard of reasonable delay, Lamer, J., proposed a transitional period to permit courts and governments to meet the standards of s. 11(b). Lamer, J., opined that time for the purpose of determining reasonableness of delay should run from the time the accused is charged, although pre-charge delay was relevant in determining whether there could be a fair trial under ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.

Wilson, J., dissenting, generally concurred with Lamer, J., but opined that prejudice should not be presumed but established to invoke s. 24.

Civil Rights - Topic 3264

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trials - Accused's right to - Denial of right - Not jurisdictional - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the notion that denial of the right to a speedy trial under s. 11(b) of the Charter was jurisdictional in nature and resulted in a loss of jurisdiction by the trial court - See paragraphs 21 to 22, 35.

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trials - Accused's right to - Within a reasonable time - What constitutes - Lamer, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada in a dissenting judgment extensively discussed the nature and purpose of s. 11(b) of the Charter respecting the right to trial within a reasonable time and the nature and elements of the balancing test of reasonableness of delay - See paragraphs 179 to 267.

Civil Rights - Topic 8361

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - General - Denial does not necessarily go to jurisdiction - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a denial of Charter rights is not necessarily jurisdictional in nature, so that remedies are not limited to prerogative relief - See paragraphs 21 to 22, 35.

Civil Rights - Topic 8363

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Jurisdiction - Court of competent jurisdiction - What constitutes - Charter, s. 24(1) - Preliminary inquiry judge - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a preliminary inquiry judge is not a court of competent jurisdiction under s. 24(1), because he has no power of disposition over the charge against the accused - Accordingly, he has no power to consider a remedy under s. 24, including the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) - See paragraphs 9, 26 to 28, 73 to 100.

Civil Rights - Topic 8363

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Jurisdiction - Court of competent jurisdiction - What constitutes - Charter, s. 24(1) - Summary conviction courts and magistrates - The Supreme Court of Canada held that criminal courts other than the provincial superior courts, such as summary conviction courts and magistrates, are courts of competent jurisdiction when acting in their trial capacity and have jurisdiction to grant relief under the Charter - However, such courts have no jurisdiction over prerogative relief - See paragraphs 10, 29.

Civil Rights - Topic 8363

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Jurisdiction - Court of competent jurisdiction - What constitutes - Charter, s. 24(1) - Provincial superior courts - The Supreme Court of Canada held that provincial and territorial superior courts are courts of competent jurisdiction both in their capacity as trial courts and in their jurisdiction over prerogative relief - See paragraphs 11, 29.

Civil Rights - Topic 8363

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Jurisdiction - Court of competent jurisdiction - What constitutes - Charter, s. 24(1) - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that because the Charter does not define what a court of competent jurisdiction is and grants no power to assign jurisdiction to any court, a court of competent jurisdiction therefore must be found in the existing Canadian judicial structure - See paragraphs 6 to 8.

Civil Rights - Topic 8367

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - General - Charter, s. 24 - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a court of competent jurisdiction under s. 24 of the Charter is given a free and unfettered discretion over remedies for Charter violations and it is up to the Canadian courts to devise imaginative remedies - See paragraphs 21 to 23, 35 to 39.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - Charter, s. 24(2) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a preliminary inquiry judge is not a court of competent jurisdiction under s. 24(1) of the Charter and has no jurisdiction to grant remedies for Charter violations, including the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) - See paragraphs 9, 28.

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the notion that a stay of proceedings is the only remedy for denial of trial within a reasonable time - See paragraphs 23, 35 to 39.

Civil Rights - Topic 8377

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Prerogative writs - The Supreme Court of Canada held that prerogative relief was available from the provincial superior courts where a violation of Charter rights was jurisdictional in nature, but stressed that prerogative relief was separate and distinct from an application for relief under s. 24 of the Charter and that relief was therefore not limited to prerogative relief for Charter violations - See paragraphs 10, 11, 22 to 23.

Civil Rights - Topic 8411

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal proceedings - Appeals - The Supreme Court of Canada held that, because no appeal procedure is provided in the Charter respecting applications for a remedy for Charter violations, appeals should follow existing procedural rules and the usual rule against interlocutory appeals prevailed - See paragraphs 14 to 20.

Civil Rights - Topic 8412

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal proceedings - Appeals from interlocutory decisions - When available - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the rule against interlocutory appeals in criminal proceedings applied to applications for a remedy under s. 24 of the Charter - Accordingly, an appeal from a judge's decision on an application for a remedy should be made a ground of appeal after the trial judge disposes of the case - See paragraphs 14 to 20.

Civil Rights - Topic 8544

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular phrases - Appropriate and just remedy - Charter, s. 24 - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a court of competent jurisdiction under s. 24 of the Charter is given a free and unfettered discretion over remedies for Charter violations and it is up to the Canadian courts to devise imaginative remedies - See paragraphs 21 to 23, 35 to 39.

Civil Rights - Topic 8584

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Time for raising Charter issues - The Supreme Court of Canada held that an application for a remedy under s. 24 of the Charter will most frequently be made to the trial judge, either by way of a pretrial motion or preliminary motion or preliminary objection - If no trial court has been ascertained, an application may be made to the superior court for prerogative relief - See paragraphs 13, 32 to 34.

Civil Rights - Topic 8586

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Method of raising Charter issues - The Supreme Court of Canada held that, because s. 24(1) of the Charter gives no jurisdictional or procedural guide, existing procedures must be adapted for use on applications for relief under s. 24 - See paragraphs 6 to 8.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott (1984), 6 O.A.C. 53; 41 C.R.(3d) 262, appld. [paras. 16, 18, 81, 87, 135].

R. v. Bird and Peebles (1984), 27 Man.R.(2d) 241; 12 C.C.C.(3d) 523 (C.A.), disapprvd. [paras. 17, 81].

Laurendeau and R., Re, [1983] C.A. 223; 9 C.C.C.(3d) 206 (Que. C.A.), consd. [paras. 17, 81].

Ritter et al. and R., Re (1984), 11 C.C.C.(3d) 123 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 17].

In re Storgoff, [1945] S.C.R. 526, refd to. [para. 17].

Turangan and Chui and R., Re (1976), 32 C.C.C.(2d) 254n (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Ashby v. White (1703), 2 Ld. Raym. 938, consd. [para. 32].

R. v. Richardson (1984), 56 N.B.R.(2d) 172; 146 A.P.R. 172, refd to. [para. 33].

Barker v. Wingo (1972), 407 U.S. 514, not folld. [paras. 37, 198, 203, 206, 207, 224, 225, 230, 236, 247, 258, 265, 266, 277, 288].

Strunk v. United States (1973), 412 U.S. 434, not folld. [paras. 37, 288].

United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116, consd. [para. 37].

Siegel and R., Re (1982), 1 C.C.C. (3d) 253, consd. [paras. 63, 80].

Potma and R., Re (1982), 67 C.C.C.(2d) 19, affd. 2 C.C.C.(3d) 383 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [paras. 63, 80, 169].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481, consd. [paras. 80, 187].

Quebec Association of Protestant School Boards v. Attorney General of Quebec, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 66; 54 N.R. 196, consd. [para. 80].

R. v. Belton (1982), 19 Man.R.(2d) 132; 3 C.C.C.(3d) 427 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 80, 207].

Blackwoods Beverages Ltd. v. Canada, [1985] 2 W.W.R. 159; 30 Man.R.(2d) 249 (C.A.), consd. [para. 80].

R. v. Cranston (1983), 55 N.S.R.(2d) 376; 114 A.P.R. 376 (S.C.), consd. [para. 80].

Canadian Newspaper Co. Ltd. v. Attorney General for Canada (1985), 7 O.A.C. 161; 49 O.R.(2d) 557, consd. [paras. 81, 87].

Kendall and R., Re; McCaffery and R., Re (1982), 42 A.R. 183; 2 C.C.C.(3d) 224 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 81, 119].

R. v. Cameron (1983), 3 C.C.C.(3d) 496 (Alta. C.A.), consd. [para. 81].

Anson and R., Re (1983), 146 D.L.R. (3d) 661 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 81].

ACL Canada Inc. v. Hunter (1983), 8 C.C.C.(3d) 190 (Que. C.A.), consd. [para. 81].

R. v. Crate (1983), 57 A.R. 354; 7 C.C.C.(3d) 127 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 81, 87].

R. v. Ritter, [1984] 2 W.W.R. 623 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 81].

R. v. Petrovic (1984), 4 O.A.C. 29; 47 O.R.(2d) 97 (C.A.), consd. [para. 81].

R. v. Kohler (1984), 5 O.A.C. 317, consd. [paras. 81, 120].

R. v. Genaille (1983), 22 Man.R.(2d) 186; 6 C.C.C.(3d) 440 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 81].

R. and Thornton v. Century Helicopters Inc. (1983), 51 A.R. 395 (Q.B.), consd. [paras. 81, 87].

R.L. Crain Inc. v. Couture (1983), 30 Sask.R. 191; 6 D.L.R.(4th) 478 (Q.B.), consd. [paras. 81, 87].

R. v. Erickson, [1984] 5 W.W.R. 577 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 86].

R. v. Red Hot Video Ltd. (1983), 6 C.C.C.(3d) 331 (B.C. Prov. Ct.), consd. [para. 86].

Service Employees' International Union, Local 204 and Broadway Manor Nursing Home, Re (1983), 44 O.R.(2d) 392 (Div. Ct.), consd. [para. 87].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. (1983), 49 A.R. 194; 9 C.C.C.(3d) 310 (Alta. C.A.), consd. [paras. 87, 187].

R. v. Rahey (1984), 63 N.S.R.(2d) 275; 141 A.P.R. 275; 13 C.C.C.(3d) 297 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 87, 109, 207, 275].

Gittens and R., Re (1982), 68 C.C.C.(2d) 438 (F.C.T.D.), consd. [para. 87].

R. v. M. (1982), 70 C.C.C.(2d) 123 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), consd. [para. 87].

Koumoudouros and Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, Re (1982), 67 C.C.C.(2d) 193 (Ont. H.C.), consd. [para. 87].

R. and Brooks, Re (1982), 1 C.C.C. (3d) 506 (Ont. H.C.), consd. [para. 87].

UBA and R., Re (1983), 5 C.C.C.(3d) 529 (Ont. H.C.), consd. [para. 87].

Legal Services Society and Brahan, Re (1983), 5 C.C.C.(3d) 404 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 87].

Conroy and R., Re (1983), 5 C.C.C. (3d) 501 (Ont. H.C.), consd. [para. 87].

Mitchell and R., Re (1984), 6 C.C.C. (3d) 193 (Ont. H.C.), consd. [para. 87].

So Tung Quan v. R. (1984), 9 C.R.R. 375 (B.C.C.C.), consd. [para. 87].

R. and Henyu, R. (1984), 11 C.C.C. (3d) 404 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 87].

Hussey and Attorney-General for Ontario, Re (1984), 13 C.C.C.(3d) 81 (Ont. Div. Ct.), consd. [para. 87].

Pattyson and R., Re (1984), 13 C.C.C. (3d) 477 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [paras. 87, 120].

R. v. Germain (1984), 53 A.R. 264 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 88].

R. v. Wilson (1982), 37 A.R. 170 (Prov. Ct.), consd. [paras. 89, 95].

R. v. Dezwirek (1983), 4 C.C.C.(3d) 69 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), consd. [paras. 89, 95].

R. and Thompson, Re (1983), 8 C.C.C. (3d) 127 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [paras. 89, 207].

R. v. Sensenstein (1983), 2 C.R.R. 296 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), consd. [para. 95].

Lamberti and Didkowski, Re (1983), 26 Sask.R. 213 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 95].

R. and Morrison, Re (1984), 47 O.R. 185 (Ont. H.C.), consd. [para. 95].

Bank of Nova Scotia and R., Re (1983), 7 C.C.C.(3d) 165 (Sask. C.A.), consd. [para. 95].

R. v. Vermette (No. 4) (1982), 1 C.C.C.(3d) 477 (Que. S.C.), consd. [para. 109].

R. v. S.B., [1983] 1 W.W.R. 512 (B.C. S.C.), consd. [paras. 109, 120].

R. v. Burns (1982), 2 C.C.C.(3d) 283 (Ont. H.C.), consd. [para. 109].

Global Communications Ltd. and A.G. of Canada, Re (1983), 5 C.C.C.(3d) 346 (Ont. H.C.), consd. [para. 109].

R. v. Rahey (1983), 61 N.S.R.(2d) 385; 133 A.P.R. 385; 9 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (S.C.), consd. [paras. 109, 207, 275].

Board v. Board, [1919] A.C. 956, consd. [para. 110].

Harelkin v. University of Regina, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 561; 26 N.R. 364, consd. [para. 118].

Krakowski and R., Re (1983), 4 C.C.C. (3d) 188 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [paras. 120, 121].

Antares Shipping Corp. v. Ship "Capricorn", [1977] 2 S.C.R. 422; 7 N.R. 518, consd. [para. 122].

Southern Pacific Co. v. M. Botner and Sons Inc., [1973] R.P. 87 (C.A.), consd. [para. 122].

Canadian Javelin Ltd. (Dans l'affaire de): Plam v. Sparling, [1979] C.S. 465, consd. [para. 122].

R. v. Jewitt (1985), 61 N.R. 159 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 137].

Government of the Republic of Italy v. Piperno, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 320; 40 N.R. 604, consd. [para. 138].

Bolduc v. Attorney General of Quebec, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 573; 43 N.R. 185, consd. [para. 138].

R. v. Rourke, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 1021; 16 N.R. 181, affing. (1975), 25 C.C.C.(2d) 555 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 138].

R. and Beason, Re (1983), 7 C.C.C. (3d) 20 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [paras. 138, 207, 289].

R. v. Heaslip et al. (1983), 1 O.A.C. 81; 36 C.R.(3d) 309 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 179, 207].

Belyea v. R., [1932] S.C.R. 279, consd. [para. 179].

R. v. Antoine (1983), 5 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [paras. 182, 207, 266, 269].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 11 D.L.R. (4th) 641; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 9 C.R.R. 355, consd. [para. 187].

Dickey v. Florida (1969), 398 U.S. 30, consd. [paras. 199, 212, 237].

United States v. Ewell (1966), 383 U.S. 116, consd. [para. 199].

Duncan v. Louisiana (1968), 391 U.S. 145, consd. [para. 202].

Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967), 386 U.S. 213, consd. [para. 203].

R. v. Dennis, Kubin and Frank (1984), 14 D.L.R.(4th) 205, consd. [para. 207].

R. v. Perry (1984), 56 N.B.R.(2d) 361; 146 A.P.R. 361; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 5 (C.A.), consd. [para. 207].

Kott and R., Re (1983), 7 C.C.C.(3d) 317 (Que. C.A.), consd. [para. 207].

U.S. v. Macdonald (1982), 465 U.S. 1, consd. [para. 210].

R. v. Korponay, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 41; 44 N.R. 103, consd. [paras. 218, 220].

Carnley v. Cochran (1962), 369 U.S. 506, consd. [para. 226].

Wemhoff v. Federal Republic of Germany (1968), 1 E.H.R.R. 55, consd. [para. 231].

State v. Fasket (1851), 5 Rich. (39 S.C.L.) 255, consd. [para. 257].

Taylor v. United States (1956), 238 F. 2d 259 (C.A.D.C.), consd. [para. 258].

United States v. Provoo (1955), 17 F.R.D. 183 (D.C.Md.), affd (1955), 350 U.S. 857, consd. [para. 258].

United States v. Chase (1955), 135 F. Supp. 230 (D.C.Ill.), consd. [para. 258].

Edwards v. Attorney-General for Canada, [1930] A.C. 124, consd. [para. 262].

Skapinker v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357; 53 N.R. 169; 3 O.A.C. 321, consd. [para. 262].

R. v. Dahlem (1983), 25 Sask.R. 10 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 275].

R. v. H.W. Corkum Construction Co. (1983), 57 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 120 A.P.R. 241 (C.A.), consd. [para. 275].

R. v. Belcourt (1982), 69 C.C.C.(2d) 286 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 275].

R. v. Boron (1983), 36 C.R.(3d) 329 (Ont. H.C.), consd. [para. 275].

R. v. Lefort (1984), 12 C.C.C.(3d) 332 (Que. Sess. Peace), consd. [para. 275].

R. and Carter, Re (1983), 9 C.C.C. (3d) 173 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 275].

R. v. Young (1984), 3 O.A.C. 254; 13 C.C.C.(3d) 1, consd. [para. 276].

Attorney General of British Columbia v. His Honour Judge Craig et al. (1983), 36 C.R.(3d) 346 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 279].

R. v. Chabot, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 985; 34 N.R. 361, consd. [para. 281].

R. v. Therens (1985), 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 283].

DeWeer (1980), 35 E.C.H.R. (Series A), 23, consd. [para. 284].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sect. 7, sect. 11(b), sect. 11(d), sect. 24, sect. 26.

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 2, sect. 426 [para. 8]; sect. 457.7, sect. 459 [para. 252]; sect. 465 [para. 9]; sect. 465(1)(b), sect. 465(1)(c), sect. 465(2)(b) [para. 253]; sect. 475 [para. 9]; sect. 510, sect. 516, sect. 520(3), sect. 529 [para. 13]; sect. 602 [paras. 14, 16]; sect. 603, sect. 618, sect. 620, sect. 719 [para. 14]; sect. 720 [para. 8]; sect. 732 [para. 13]; sect. 732.1 [para. 252].

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) [para. 193].

Habeas Corpus Act, 1679 (Imp.) [para. 190].

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 2(3) [para. 77]; art. 9(3) [para. 192].

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 8 [para. 76].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Amsterdam, Anthony, G., Speedy Criminal Trial: Rights and Remedies (1975), 27 Stanford L. Rev. 525 [paras. 37, 191, 194, 203].

Dicey, Law of the Constitution (10th Ed. 1959), pp. 217-219 [para. 190].

Ewaschuk, E.G., The Charter: An Overview of Remedies (1982), 26 C.R.(3d) 54 [paras. 21, 87, 125].

Garton, Graham, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 11(b): The Relevance of Pre-Charge Delay in Assessing the Right to Trial Within a Reasonable Time (1984), 46 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 177; 135 A.P.R. 177; 52 N.R. 116; 2 O.A.C. 140; 51 A.R. 140; 31 Sask.R. 290; 27 Man.R.(2d) 74; 52 N.B.R.(2d) 293; 137 A.P.R. 293; 62 N.S.R.(2d) 243; 136 A.P.R. 243 [paras. 200, 207].

Gold, Alan, Annual Review of Criminal Law (1982) [paras. 21, 125].

Hogg, Peter, Canada Act 1982 Annotated (1982) [para. 86].

Lagging Right to a Speedy Trial (1965), 51 Vir. L. Rev. 1587 [paras. 37, 258].

Levy, J.C., The Invocation of Remedies Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Some Procedural Considerations (1983), 13 Man. L.J. 523 [paras. 21, 87, 121, 125].

Manning, Morris, Rights, Freedoms and the Courts: A Practical Analysis of the Constitution Act, 1982 (1983), pp. 477 [para. 125]; 478 [paras. 21, 125]; 460, 473 [para. 86].

Richards, J.G., and Smith, G.J., Applying the Charter (1983), 4 Advocates' Quarterly 129 [paras. 79, 87].

Right to a Criminal Trial (Note), 57 Col. L. Rev. 846 [para. 212].

Salhany, Canadian Criminal Procedure (4th Ed.), pp. 209-210 [para. 13].

Uviller, H. Richard, Baker v. Wingo: Speedy Trial Gets a Fast Shuffle (1972), 72 Col. L. Rev. 1376 [paras. 37, 203].

Counsel:

Julius Melnitzer and D. Fletcher Dawson, for the appellant;

David H. Doherty and M.S.T. Wine, for the respondent.

This case was heard on October 9, 1985, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and La Forest, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On June 26, 1986, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

McIntyre, J. (Beetz and Chouinard, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 24;

La Forest, J. - see paragraphs 25 to 48;

Lamer, J. (Dickson, C.J.C., concurring), dissenting - see paragraphs 49 to 303;

Wilson, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 304 to 310.