R. v. Vassell (S.R.), [2016] A.R. TBEd. JN.125
Judge | Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Brown, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
Case Date | May 20, 2016 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | [2016] A.R. TBEd. JN.125;2016 SCC 26 |
R. v. Vassell (S.R.), [2016] A.R. TBEd. JN.125
MLB being edited
Currently being edited for A.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
Temp. Cite: [2016] A.R. TBEd. JN.125
Shane Rayshawn Vassell (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)
(36792; 2016 SCC 26; 2016 CSC 26)
Indexed As: R. v. Vassell (S.R.)
Supreme Court of Canada
Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Brown, JJ.
June 30, 2016.
Summary:
The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found Vassell guilty of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (see [2014] A.R. Uned. 342). Vassell appealed his conviction.
The Alberta Court of Appeal, O'Ferrall, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal (see (2015), 609 A.R. 253; 656 W.A.C. 253). Vassell appealed. Vassell said that his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was violated. In the alternative, he alleged violations of his ss. 9 and 10(b) Charter rights.
The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that Vassell's s. 11(b) Charter argument had to succeed. The court allowed the appeal, set aside Vassell's conviction and entered a stay of proceedings. As a result, it was unnecessary to address Vassell's ss. 9 and 10(b) arguments.
Civil Rights - Topic 3264
Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - Denial of right - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed Vassell's appeal from his conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking - The court found that Vassell's right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was violated - Although Vassell attempted to move his case to trial at every opportunity, he waited three years for a trial - Looking at the overall delay in a case of moderate complexity, the court was satisfied that the delay was unreasonable - Much of the delay was caused by Vassell's six co-accused and their counsel - That delay could not be ignored in assessing whether Vassell's right to be tried within a reasonable time was breached - Having chosen to prosecute all seven accused jointly, the Crown was required to remain vigilant that its decision not compromise the s. 11(b) rights of the accused persons - Two adjournments occasioned by the Crown pushed the delay beyond the bounds of reasonableness - The first adjournment occurred because of the Crown's need to attend a funeral - The second adjournment fell squarely at the feet of the Crown and the system - On the second trial date, the Crown announced that it intended to lead additional undisclosed expert evidence - Vassell was required to wait another seven months for a third trial date - The Crown was required to be more proactive in light of Vassell's consistent efforts to obtain a speedy trial - The court set aside Vassell's conviction, and entered a stay of proceedings.
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 Civil Rights - Topic 3264 ].
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 Civil Rights - Topic 3264 ].
Civil Rights - Topic 8374
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3264 ].
Counsel:
Graham Johnson, for the appellant;
Susanne Boucher and Jonathan Martin, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Dawson Duckett Shaigec & Garcia, Edmonton, Alberta, for the appellant;
Public Prosecution Service of Canada, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on May 20, 2016, before Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Brown, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered by Moldaver, J., in both official languages, on June 30, 2016.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R. v. K.J.M., 2019 SCC 55
...283; R. v. King, 2018 NLCA 66, 369 C.C.C. (3d) 1; R. v. K.G.K., 2019 MBCA 9, 373 C.C.C. (3d) 1; R. v. Vader, 2009 ABCA 191; R. v. Vassell, 2016 SCC 26, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 625. By Abella and Brown JJ. (dissenting) R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631; R. v. Cody, 2017 SCC 31, [2017] 1......
-
Table of cases
...R v Vasarhelyi, 2011 ONCA 397 ..................................................................177, 178 R v Vassell, 2015 ABCA 409, rev’d 2016 SCC 26 ..................16, 224, 229, 298, 302 R v Viszlai, 2012 BCCA 442 ............................................................... 220, 221......
-
The Impact of the Charter
...judge pointed to Grant in arguing that the majority erred. The Supreme Court of Canada reversed the result in Vassell ( R v Vassell , 2016 SCC 26), but on the basis of a trial within a reasonable time argument which explicitly did not consider the section 9 issue. 76 The Court considered ar......
-
Table of cases
...263, 293, 450, 451 R v Vasil, [1981] 1 SCR 469, 58 CCC (2d) 97, [1981] SCJ No 43 ................453, 455 R v Vassell, [2016] 1 SCR 625, 2016 SCC 26 ........................................................ 52 R v Venneri, [2012] 2 SCR 211, 2012 SCC 33 .............................................
-
R. v. K.J.M., 2019 SCC 55
...283; R. v. King, 2018 NLCA 66, 369 C.C.C. (3d) 1; R. v. K.G.K., 2019 MBCA 9, 373 C.C.C. (3d) 1; R. v. Vader, 2009 ABCA 191; R. v. Vassell, 2016 SCC 26, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 625. By Abella and Brown JJ. (dissenting) R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631; R. v. Cody, 2017 SCC 31, [2017] 1......
-
R v. Hunt, 2018 NLSC 170
...880; R. c. Gakmakge, 2017 QCCS 3279; R. v. Ferstl, 2017 ABPC 266; R. v. Ny, 2016 ONSC 8031; R. v. Lemioer, 2017 SKQB 106; R. v. Vassell, 2016 SCC 26; R. v. La, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 680; R. v. Picard, 2017 ONCA 692; R. v. Hunt, 2016 NLCA 61; R. v. Colpitts, 2018 NSSC 41; R. v. Eid, 2017 ONSC 892 ......
-
R. v. Jordan (B.R.) et al., (2016) 484 N.R. 202 (SCC)
...the Crown and the justice system should be capable of prioritizing cases that have faltered due to unforeseen events (see R. v. Vassell , 2016 SCC 26). Thus, any portion of the delay that the Crown and the system could reasonably have mitigated may not be subtracted (i.e., it may not be app......
-
R. v. Jordan (B.R.) et al., (2016) 388 B.C.A.C. 111 (SCC)
...the Crown and the justice system should be capable of prioritizing cases that have faltered due to unforeseen events (see R. v. Vassell , 2016 SCC 26). Thus, any portion of the delay that the Crown and the system could reasonably have mitigated may not be subtracted (i.e., it may not be app......
-
The COVID-19 Pandemic And The Right To A Trial Within A Reasonable Time
...the Crown and the justice system should be capable of prioritizing cases that have faltered due to unforeseen events (see R. v. Vassell, 2016 SCC 26, [2016] 1 SCR 625). Thus, any portion of the delay that the Crown and the system could reasonably have mitigated may not be subtracted (i.e. i......
-
The Ontario Court Of Appeal Weighs In On The Jordan Framework For Trial Within A Reasonable Time
...had been advancing them from the outset.3 Following Manasseri and the Supreme Court of Canada's recent similar decision in R. v. Vassell, 2016 SCC 26, it will be incumbent upon defence counsel to clearly state that they are willing and able to proceed in circumstances where counsel for a co......
-
Table of cases
...263, 293, 450, 451 R v Vasil, [1981] 1 SCR 469, 58 CCC (2d) 97, [1981] SCJ No 43 ................453, 455 R v Vassell, [2016] 1 SCR 625, 2016 SCC 26 ........................................................ 52 R v Venneri, [2012] 2 SCR 211, 2012 SCC 33 .............................................
-
The Criminal Law and the Constitution
...a prosecution for drug and weapons charges; R v Thanabalasingham , 2020 SCC 18, staying a second-degree murder charge; R v Vassell , 2016 SCC 26, staying drug charges. 173 Code , above note 1, ss 517 and 539. 174 Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd v Canada , [2010] 1 SCR 721. 175 Code , above note......
-
Rights in the Criminal Process
...staying a prosecution for drug and weapons charges; R v Thanabalasingham, 2020 SCC 18, staying a second-degree murder charge; R v Vassell, 2016 SCC 26, [2016] 1 SCR 625, staying drug charges where the Crown proceeded jointly against several accused, and the delay was caused by the co-accuse......
-
Table of cases, index and about the authors
...313 R v Van der Peet, [1996] 2 SCR 507....................... 453, 466–69, 470, 484, 485, 488 R v Vassell, 2016 SCC 26, [2016] 1 SCR 625.......................................................344 R v Vu, [2013] 3 SCR 657, 2013 SCC 60.................................................................