R. v. Wong, 2012 ONCA 286 has some useful language about delay in the Ontario Court of Justcie:
We cannot leave this case without noting one troubling aspect of this case, however. As we have said, the focus of the appellant’s complaints were around the delay after the preliminary inquiry could not be completed within the original time allotment. However, it was the fact that those original dates were set almost a year after the parties were ready to set a date for the preliminary inquiry that put this case in jeopardy. It was this very limited capacity in the Ontario Court of Justice to accommodate a two-day preliminary inquiry that posed the greatest challenge to the system. And it was only because the overall delay in both the Ontario Court and the Superior Court of Justice was not unreasonable that this case was not stayed. It is troubling that 30 years after proclamation of the right to a speedy trial, that right remains precarious in some jurisdictions.
1 comment:
It's a little rich for appellate courts to speak of how "troubling" this trend is when nearly every pronouncement for the ONCA and even the SCJ on this point regularly excuses the conduct and finds reason NOT to grant a stay of proceedings.
This sends a VERY clear message to those with the power to speed up the administration of justice -- don't worry about; we'll chastise you in our judgments but you won't pay the price of a lost case...only the accused will be hit with the burdens associated with delay.
Post a Comment