R. v. Slaney, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 228
Patrick Slaney Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Slaney
File No.: 23158.
1993: April 30.
Present: L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for newfoundland
Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights ‑‑ Trial within a reasonable time ‑‑ Five months' systemic delay between charge and committal not unreasonable ‑‑ Substantial part of delay after committal explained or waived ‑‑ Balance of delay after committal not unreasonable ‑‑ Stay of proceedings not justified ‑‑ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 11(b) .
Cases Cited
Applied: R. v. Askov, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199; R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , s. 11 ( b ) .
APPEAL from a judgment of the Newfoundland Court of Appeal (1992), 99 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 141, 315 A.P.R. 141, 75 C.C.C. (3d) 385, vacating a stay of proceedings granted by the Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division (1991), 89 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 139, 278 A.P.R. 139. Appeal dismissed.
Martin Peters and Thomas McRae, for the appellant.
Colin J. Flynn, for the respondent.
//Sopinka J.//
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
Sopinka J. ‑‑ This is an appeal as of right. In our opinion, applying the principles in R. v. Askov, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199, and R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771, there was no unreasonable delay in this case so as to justify the imposition of a stay pursuant to the provisions of s. 11( b ) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . In this respect, we are in agreement with the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland.
Applying the relevant factors, we are of the view that there was a maximum of five months of systemic delay from the time of the charge to committal. This was not unreasonable. Subsequent to committal, the delay to January 16, 1990 was due to the preparation of the transcript of the preliminary hearing. The period from April 6, 1990 to October 22, 1990, was waived by the appellant. Counsel for the appellant consented to the trial date and there is no indication that he was acquiescing in the inevitable. The Crown was entitled to a reasonable time to prepare for the motion which was served on it on October 17, 1990. In our view, a substantial part of the delay subsequent to committal is explained or waived, and the balance, attributable to systemic delay, is not unreasonable.
Assuming, without deciding, that s. 11( b ) of the Charter applies to appellate proceedings, we are not satisfied that the delay in this case was unreasonable.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Shibley, Righton, Toronto.
Solicitor for the respondent: Colin J. Flynn, St. John's, Newfoundland.
Email this Content