Canada: R. v. Cody: Trial Within A Reasonable Time And Enhancing Efficiency

Last Updated: August 8 2017
Article by Kenneth Jull

The Supreme Court decision in Jordan1 was a watershed decision that changed the balancing required in considering whether a trial has occurred in a reasonable time. The Court has affirmed the importance of this case in the 2017 decision in R. v. Cody.2

In considering whether a stay of charges should be granted in the context of trial within a reasonable time, the seriousness of the offence will not override the rights in issue. The result is that very serious charges, including murder, have been stayed. This has resulted in considerable media criticism and understandably victims of serious crimes have been left feeling that the justice system has failed them.3 The Jordan and the Cody decisions require that all of the actors in the criminal justice system must engage in a risk balancing of priorities much earlier in the process.

The Court set presumptive time limits in Jordan:4

The new framework for s. 11(b) can be summarized as follows:

  • There is a ceiling beyond which delay becomes presumptively unreasonable. The presumptive ceiling is 18 months for cases tried in the provincial court, and 30 months for cases in the superior court (or cases tried in the provincial court after a preliminary inquiry). Defence delay does not count towards the presumptive ceiling.
  • Once the presumptive ceiling is exceeded, the burden shifts to the Crown to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness on the basis of exceptional circumstances. Exceptional circumstances lie outside the Crown's control in that (1) they are reasonably unforeseen or reasonably unavoidable, and (2) they cannot reasonably be remedied. If the exceptional circumstance relates to a discrete event, the delay reasonably attributable to that event is subtracted. If the exceptional circumstance arises from the case's complexity, the delay is reasonable.
  • Below the presumptive ceiling, in clear cases, the defence may show that the delay is unreasonable. To do so, the defence must establish two things: (1) it took meaningful steps that demonstrate a sustained effort to expedite the proceedings; and (2) the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.
  • For cases currently in the system, the framework must be applied flexibly and contextually, with due sensitivity to the parties' reliance on the previous state of the law.

In Cody, the Supreme Court of Canada delivered a unanimous decision with strong language underscoring the importance of Charter rights and precedent in the Court:5

A number of the provincial Attorneys General who intervened in this matter asked this Court to modify the Jordan framework to provide for more flexibility in deducting and justifying delay. But Jordan was released a year ago. Like any of this Court's precedents, it must be followed and it cannot be lightly discarded or overruled (Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1101, at para. 38; Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 331, at para. 44). The Jordan framework now governs the s. 11(b) analysis and, properly applied, already provides sufficient flexibility and accounts for the transitional period of time that is required for the criminal justice system to adapt.

The facts in Cody set the context. On January 12, 2010, Mr. Cody was arrested as a part of "Operation Razorback", a drug trafficking investigation. A search of Mr. Cody's vehicle uncovered half a kilogram of marijuana, a kilogram of cocaine and a stun gun.

In the ensuing months, there were skirmishes over the format of disclosure, changes of counsel, motions to exclude evidence, further disclosure concerning misconduct allegations that had been made against one of the police officers involved in Operation Razorback, an application for a stay of proceedings or a mistrial, and a recusal application alleging reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court in Cody applies the Jordan framework in a staged manner. The first step under this framework entails "calculating the total delay from the charge to the actual or anticipated end of trial" [emphasis added]. Pausing here for a moment, it is worth noting that the parameter of the actual or anticipated end of trial is a major change from prior jurisprudence in the trial within a reasonable time jurisprudence. One of the logistical dynamics that this creates is that the trial Judge's own conduct of the case in terms of efficient trial management may be in issue.

In the Cody case an information was sworn against Mr. Cody on January 12, 2010, and his trial was scheduled to conclude on January 30, 2015. This makes the total delay approximately 60.5 months.

After the total delay is calculated, "delay attributable to the defence must be subtracted". Defence delay is divided into two components: (1) "delay waived by the defence"; and (2) "delay that is caused solely by the conduct of the defence".

In the Cody case, it was undisputed that Mr. Cody expressly waived 13 months of delay. Accounting for this reduces the net delay to approximately 47.5 months.

In assessing the second component, the Supreme Court observes that the only deductible defence delay under this component is, therefore, that which: (1) is solely or directly caused by the accused person; and (2) flows from defence action that is illegitimate insomuch as it is not taken to respond to the charges. As the said in Jordan, the most straightforward example is "[d]eliberate and calculated defence tactics aimed at causing delay, which include frivolous applications and requests". Similarly, where the court and Crown are ready to proceed, but the defence is not, the resulting delay should also be deducted.

The Court sets the bar for illegitimate action as less than professional misconduct but also respectful of the right to make full answer and defence:

We stress that illegitimacy in this context does not necessarily amount to professional or ethical misconduct on the part of defence counsel. A finding of illegitimate defence conduct need not be tantamount to a finding of professional misconduct. Instead, legitimacy takes its meaning from the culture change demanded in Jordan. All justice system participants — defence counsel included — must now accept that many practices which were formerly commonplace or merely tolerated are no longer compatible with the right guaranteed by s. 11(b) of the Charter.6

To effect real change, the Court endorses a proactive approach that prevents unnecessary delay by targeting its root causes. The following are some highlights of this approach:

  • Before permitting an application to proceed, a trial judge should consider whether it has a reasonable prospect of success. This may entail asking defence counsel to summarize the evidence it anticipates eliciting in the voir dire and, where that summary reveals no basis upon which the application could succeed, dismissing the application summarily.
  • Trial judges should also be active in suggesting ways to improve efficiency in the conduct of legitimate applications and motions, such as proceeding on a documentary record alone. This responsibility is shared with counsel.

On the facts in Cody, the Court deducted two periods of time as defence delay. First, it was undisputed throughout the proceedings that the delay resulting from Mr. Cody's first change of counsel should be deducted as defence delay. The second period arose from Mr. Cody's recusal application alleging reasonable apprehension of bias, which was meritless, frivolous or illegitimate.

After accounting for these two deductions, the net delay is approximately 44 months. Because the net delay of approximately 44 months exceeds the 30-month ceiling, it was presumptively unreasonable, and it fell to the Crown to demonstrate exceptional circumstances.

Exceptional circumstances lie outside the Crown's control in the sense that (1) they are reasonably unforeseen or reasonably unavoidable, and (2) Crown counsel cannot reasonably remedy the delays emanating from those circumstances once they arise.

In Cody the Court divided exceptional circumstances generally into three categories: discrete events; particularly complex cases; and transitional cases already in the system.

(i) Discrete events

"The delay caused by discrete exceptional events or circumstances that are reasonably unforeseeable or unavoidable is deducted to the extent it could not be reasonably mitigated by the Crown and the justice system"(emphasis added). For example, Mr. Cody conceded that his former counsel's appointment to the bench qualifies as an unavoidable discrete event, and that the 4.5 months of resultant delay should be deducted. By contrast, "it was the Crown's refusal to release the disclosure that pushed the delay beyond what might otherwise be viewed as reasonable".

(ii) Particularly Complex Cases

A particularly complex case is one that "because of the nature of the evidence or the nature of the issues, require[s] an inordinate amount of trial or preparation time". This calculation is qualitative and is not a simplistic analysis only of things such as volume of disclosure, as illustrated in the following paragraph:

In this case, the Crown argues that four months of delay should be deducted as an exceptional circumstance based on the complexity as demonstrated by the voluminous disclosure. The majority of the Court of Appeal agreed. This approach, however, is inconsistent with a qualitative assessment of case complexity. The delay caused by a single isolated step that has features of complexity should not have been deducted. While voluminous disclosure is a hallmark of particularly complex cases, its presence is not automatically demonstrative of complexity. The question is whether the case is sufficiently complex "such that the delay is justified" (Jordan, at para. 77). Here, there was extensive disclosure. However, the balance of the proceedings appear to have been relatively straightforward. In our view, even after accounting for the voluminous disclosure, this does not qualify as a particularly complex case.7

(iii) The Transitional Exceptional Circumstance

The Crown may show that it cannot be faulted for failing to take further steps, because it would have understood the delay to be reasonable given its expectations prior to Jordan. Under this category however, the seriousness of the offence and prejudice play an important role under the transitional exceptional circumstance.8 For aspects of the case that pre-dated Jordan, the focus should be on reliance on factors that were relevant under the Morin framework, including the seriousness of the offence and prejudice. For delay that accrues after Jordan was released, the focus should instead be on the extent to which the parties and the courts had sufficient time to adapt.

As noted above, seriousness of the offence is not a relevant factor in post Jordan cases, which brings this analysis into line with the same reasoning by the Court in the exclusion of evidence context.

On the facts in Cody, the Court found that the charges were serious, but this consideration was overcome by the trial judge's findings of "real and substantial actual prejudice". The ultimate conclusion of the Supreme Court of Canada was that the delay in this case was unreasonable.

In assessing the complexity of a trial, an important factor will be the necessity of expert evidence. Expert evidence must pass the gatekeeper threshold of admissibility. Expert opinion evidence can be a key element in the search for truth, but it may also pose special dangers. To guard against them, the Court over the last 20 years or so has progressively tightened the rules of admissibility and enhanced the trial judge's gatekeeping role. These developments seek to ensure that expert opinion evidence meets certain basic standards before it is admitted.9

Trial Judges play a gatekeeper function. Expert evidence is not admissible unless it meets strict criteria, as articulated by Justice Cromwell of the Supreme Court of Canada:

Finding that expert evidence meets the basic threshold does not end the inquiry. Consistent with the structure of the analysis developed following Mohan which I have discussed earlier, the judge must still take concerns about the expert's independence and impartiality into account in weighing the evidence at the gatekeeping stage. At this point, relevance, necessity, reliability and absence of bias can helpfully be seen as part of a sliding scale where a basic level must first be achieved in order to meet the admissibility threshold and thereafter continue to play a role in weighing the overall competing considerations in admitting the evidence. At the end of the day, the judge must be satisfied that the potential helpfulness of the evidence is not outweighed by the risk of the dangers materializing that are associated with expert evidence.10

The role of expert evidence will have particular relevance to white collar financial charges and/or regulatory charges. To the extent that there is a ruling at the gatekeeper stage about the necessity of this evidence, this will assist with the determination of complexity on the issue of trial within a reasonable time.

Footnotes

1 R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, 2016 CSC 27.

2 R. v. Cody, 2017 SCC 31.

3 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario-murder-case-tests-courts-time-limit-dismissals/article34648763/; https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/murder-charge-dismissal-leaves-fouad-nayels-parents-waiting-for-justice/article35281939/

4 R. v. Jordan 2016 SCC 27, 2016 CSC 27 at paragraph 105.

5 R. v. Cody, 2017 SCC 31 at paragraph 3.

6 Cody at paragraph 35.

7 Cody at paragraph 65.

8 Cody at paragraph 70.

9 White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., 2015 SCC 23 [2015] 2 SCR 18

10 White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., 2015 SCC 23 [2015] 2 SCR 18 at paragraph 54.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions