Timeframes for issuing reasons

R. v. Runnalls, 2009 ONCA 504, released today, sets out guidelines for the reasonable limit for issuing reasons from the Ontario Review Board.

 Since the decisions of the Review Board are at least as complex as most Court hearings, Runnalls may be taken as a guide for other judicial officers and their release of reasons.

In this regard, it is likely worth noting that s. 123(5) of the Courts of Justice Act (more or less) requires decisions on motions within three months and trials within six months.  This time limit is seldom enforced and this author has waited, on occasion, considerably longer than those time limits for a decision.

The Court in Runnalls writes:

[7]         The first issue raised by the Amicus is that the six months taken by the Board to issue its reasons for disposition in this case is unreasonable and has resulted in prejudice to the appellant. The Board issued its disposition on March 14, 2008 in relation to the hearing held on March 10, 2008, but did not deliver its reasons until September 25, 2008.

[8]         Particularly because of the Board's statutory mandate to conduct annual review hearings of the status of persons found not criminally responsible and because of an NCR accused's statutory right of appeal, it is essential that the Board be in a position to issue its reasons for disposition in a timely way. This would generally mean much more quickly than within six months of a hearing.

…

 [10]                      That said, I am unable to discern any basis for awarding any form of remedy on the facts of this case. Nothing in the Board's reasons points to the existence of any error or oversight in the formal disposition that was issued. Moreover, there is nothing in the Board's reasons to suggest that they are not a true articulation of its reasoning. Albeit delayed, it is anticipated that the appellant’s next annual review will now be held promptly, in August of this year.

[11]          However, like the panel of this court in R. v. Roberts, [2007] O.J. No. 4016, I would urge the Board to take all necessary steps to ensure that reasons are delivered forthwith. In Roberts, this court said:

Although the Board gave its decision in a timely fashion, it did not provide reasons for some six months. It is crucial to the process that the reasons be made available as soon as reasonably possible. We intend no criticism as we are unaware of the circumstances that caused the lengthy delay in the delivery of reasons in the matter. We urge the Board to take all necessary steps to ensure that reasons are delivered forthwith.

[12]          Absent exceptional circumstances, I would suggest a range of three to four months as a reasonable outside limit for the release of such reasons. However, for the reasons outlined above, I would not give effect to this ground of appeal in the present circumstances.