In the context of a right to trial within a reasonable period of time, there is no duty on an accused to bring him or herself to trial

R. v. MacIntosh 2013 SCC 23 upholds, unanimously, the decision of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in  R. v. MacIntosh, 2011 NSCA 111. That case is clear that an accused is not to bear the blame for systemic trial delay:

[47]           It is the responsibility of the state to bring any accused to trial.  There is no common law duty to assist the police (see Rice v. Connolly, [1966] 2 All E.R. 649 at p. 652; Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada (Director of Investigation and Research, Restrictive Trade Practices Commission), 1990 CanLII 135 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425). 

 

[48]           In the context of a right to trial within a reasonable period of time, there is no duty on an accused to bring him or herself to trial.  R. v. Beason reflex, (1983), 7 C.C.C. (3d) 20, [1983] O.J. No. 3151 (Ont.C.A.) is an early s. 11(b) case.  Martin J.A. said precisely this at para. 63:  "An accused has no duty to bring himself to trial. The Crown has that duty."

 

[49]           This principle has been confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.  In Askov, Cory J. wrote:

 

57        It must be remembered that it is the duty of the Crown to bring the accused to trial. It is the Crown which is responsible for the provision of facilities and staff to see that accused persons are tried in a reasonable time.

 

[50]           This has been re-affirmed in a number of subsequent cases.  That is not to say that the actions or inaction by an accused are irrelevant to a s. 11(b) analysis.  While the actions by an accused that cause or contribute to delay are assessed in examining the reasons for the overall delay, inaction is not.  Inaction by an accused may be considered when assessing the degree of prejudice.