Jump to content

Extraordinary Circumstances in Jordan Delay Analysis: Difference between revisions

Extraordinary Circumstances in Jordan Delay Analysis (view source)

Revision as of 18:15, 14 August 2019

3,479 bytes added ,  14 August 2019
→‎Discrete Events
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 35: Line 35:


==Discrete Events==
==Discrete Events==
Discrete events are the first of two categories of extraordinary circumstances that are permissible forms of delay and so are not calculated against the Jordan ceiling.
They are the events that "disturb the normal course of the matter and which no one [being Crown and Court] ... could do anything to prevent".<ref>
''R v Rice'', 2018 QCCA 198 (CanLII){{fix}}{{at|84}}
</ref>
The discrete events category require that the developments be "unforeseeable and unavoidable".<ref>
The discrete events category require that the developments be "unforeseeable and unavoidable".<ref>
''R v Jordan'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gsds3 2016 SCC 27] (CanLII){{perSCC|Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Brown JJ}}{{atL|73|http://canlii.ca/t/gsds3}}<br>
''R v Jordan'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gsds3 2016 SCC 27] (CanLII){{perSCC|Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Brown JJ}}{{atL|73|http://canlii.ca/t/gsds3}}<br>
Line 40: Line 46:
They must be events that "could not be reasonably mitigated by the Crown and the justice system."<ref>
They must be events that "could not be reasonably mitigated by the Crown and the justice system."<ref>
''R v Cody'', [2017] 1 SCR 659, [http://canlii.ca/t/h4bfk 2017 SCC 31] (CanLII){{atL|48|http://canlii.ca/t/h4bfk}}
''R v Cody'', [2017] 1 SCR 659, [http://canlii.ca/t/h4bfk 2017 SCC 31] (CanLII){{atL|48|http://canlii.ca/t/h4bfk}}
</ref>
; Duty to "mitigate" by "reasonable steps"
Any portion of the delay that "could reasonably have [been] mitigated" will be subtracted from the period of time considered "extraordinary".<ref>
{{ibid1|Jordan}}{{atL|75|http://canlii.ca/t/gsds3}}
</ref>
</ref>


Once the discrete event occurs the Crown then has an obligation to try to resolve the issue without causing any more delay.
Once the discrete event occurs the Crown then has an obligation to try to resolve the issue without causing any more delay.


The Crown must show that "it took reasonable available steps to avoid and address the problem before the delay exceeded the ceiling."<ref>
For any instance of a discrete event, the Crown and justice system "must always be prepared to mitigate the delay".<ref>
{{ibid1|Jordan}}{{atL|75|http://canlii.ca/t/gsds3}}<br>
''R v Zikhali, 2019 ONCJ 24 (CanLII){{perONCJ|Burstein J}}{{at|17}}
</ref>
In any claim of a "discrete event, the Crown has the burden to show that "it took reasonable available steps to avoid and address the problem before the delay exceeded the ceiling."<ref>
{{ibid1|Jordan}}{{atL|70|http://canlii.ca/t/gsds3}}<br>
{{ibid1|Jordan}}{{atL|70|http://canlii.ca/t/gsds3}}<br>
</ref>
The Crown and justice system must prioritize cases that are delayed due to discrete events.<ref>
{{ibid1|Jordan}}{{atL|75|http://canlii.ca/t/gsds3}}<br>
{{supra1|Rice}}{{at|85}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Line 52: Line 72:
</ref>
</ref>


; Trial Going Overtime
Where Crown and defence significantly underestimate the time required for trial, as long as they were making good-faith efforts to account for the required time, the resultant delay would be a "extraordinary circumstances".<ref>
''R v Testroete'', [http://canlii.ca/t/h6bxl 2017 NSPC 50] (CanLII){{perNSPC|Tax J}}{{atL|150|http://canlii.ca/t/h6bxl}}<br>
cf. ''R v Foroughi-Mobarakeh'', [http://canlii.ca/t/h389w 2017 NSSC 100] (CanLII){{perNSSC|Murray J}}{{atsL|57 to 64|http://canlii.ca/t/h389w#par57}}
</ref>
; Swapping Out Crown Counsel
Where the Crown bears the burden to establish reasonable steps to mitigate delay, there is need in certain circumstances for the Crown present evidence explaining the reasons why changing to different Crown counsel may not have been a practical response to a discrete event.<ref>
e.g. {{supra1|Zikhali}}{{at|38}}
</ref>
; Recanting Witnesses
A witness who recants unexpectedly during trial will be a discrete event.<ref>
{{supra1|Jordan}}
</ref>
However, it has been found that where the recantation was known to the Crown well in advance of trial it can be rejected as not being discrete event.<ref>
''R v Smythe'', 2017 SKQB 86 (CanLII)<br>
</ref>
; Other Examples of "reasonable steps"
An example of reasonable steps include:
An example of reasonable steps include:
* seeking the assistance of the court;<ref>
* seeking the assistance of the court;<ref>
Line 62: Line 102:
{{supra1|Jordan}}{{atL|70|http://canlii.ca/t/gsds3}}<br></ref>
{{supra1|Jordan}}{{atL|70|http://canlii.ca/t/gsds3}}<br></ref>


An example of valid discrete events would be a recanting complainant.<ref>
; Examples of "discrete events"
{{ibid1|Jordan}}{{atL|73|http://canlii.ca/t/gsds3}}<br>
Certain circumstances have been found to constitute discrete events, including:
* medical or personal emergencies for the accused, counsel, judge, or jury member.<ref>
''R v Robert'', [http://canlii.ca/t/hqd8p 2018 ONSC 545] (CanLII){{perONSC|Thomas J}}<br>
''R v Charles'', 2017 QCCQ 1321<Br>
''R v Giles'', 2017 BCSC 73 (CanLII)<br>
''R v Windibank'', 2017 ONSC 855<br>
''R v Nazarek'', 2017 BCSC 2340<br>
''R v Chandroo'', 2017 QCCQ 8155<Br>
''R v Herman'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gxhkd 2017 BCSC 215] (CanLII){{per BCSC|Davies J}}<Br>
''R v Lee'', 2017 ONSC 4862<br>
''R v Sachro, 2017 ONCJ 570<br>
''R v Cook'', 2017 QCCQ 9785<br>
''R v Hertyk'', 2017 ONCJ 641<br>
''R v Akumu'', 2017 BCSC 896<br>
''R v Coulter'', 2016 ONCA 704<br>
</ref>
* An important medical condition or procedure on a witness, including pregnancy.<ref>
''R v L(R)'', 2016 ONSC 8008 (CanLII)<br>
''R v Curry'', 2016 BCSC 1435<br>
</ref>
* a police officer witness on medical leave.<REf>
''R v Gopie'', 2017 ONCA 728 (CanLII)
</ref>
* malfunction of court recording system.<ref>
''R v Waboose'', 2017 ONSC 3862 (CanLII)
</ref>
* a witness refusing to testify<ref>
''R v Tsega'', 2017 ONSC 3090 (CanLII)<br>
</ref>
</ref>


; Court and Crown Duty to Mitigate
There are circumstances that have been rejected as being discrete events:
Any portion of the delay that "could reasonably have [been] mitigated" will be subtracted from the period of time considered "extraordinary".<ref>
* Failure to arrange for an interpreter to attend for trial.<ref>
{{ibid1|Jordan}}{{atL|75|http://canlii.ca/t/gsds3}}
''R v Paauw'', 2017 ONSC 7394 (CanLII)<br>
''R v Sinatra'', 2017 ONCJ 101 (CanLII)<br>
''R v Nguyen'', 2016 ONCJ 712 (CanLII)<br>
''R v Khou'', 2-16 ONCJ 865 (CanLII)<br>
</reF>
* failure to serve a witness in a timely manner;<ref>
''R v Millar'', 2017 BCSC 1887 (CanLII)<br>
''R v Bishop'', 2017 ONSC 7734 (CanLII)<br>
''R v Smythe'', 2017 SKQB 86 (CanLII)<br>
</ref>
* drafting errors in joint statement of fact<ref>
{{supra1|Cody}}
</ref>
</ref>


; Trial Going Overtime
; Consequence of Discrete Events
Where Crown and defence significantly underestimate the time required for trial, as long as they were making good-faith efforts to account for the required time, the resultant delay would be a "extraordinary circumstances".<ref>
Anytime that a discrete event has been found that delay caused by the time must be deducted from the total calculation.<ref>
''R v Testroete'', [http://canlii.ca/t/h6bxl 2017 NSPC 50] (CanLII){{perNSPC|Tax J}}{{atL|150|http://canlii.ca/t/h6bxl}}<br>
{{supra1|Cody}}{{atL|48|http://canlii.ca/t/h4bfk}}
cf. ''R v Foroughi-Mobarakeh'', [http://canlii.ca/t/h389w 2017 NSSC 100] (CanLII){{perNSSC|Murray J}}{{atsL|57 to 64|http://canlii.ca/t/h389w#par57}}
</ref>
</ref>
{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}


Retrieved from "http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Special:MobileDiff/33952...33962"