Reasons for Delay (Morin Framework Only)

This page was last substantively updated or reviewed January 2019. (Rev. # 95592)

• < Procedure and Practice
• < Delay

General Principles

It is "the ultimate responsibility of moving a case forward rests with the Crown." However, the Crown is not to take responsibility for defence counsel's failings to properly represent the interests of their client.

Intake Period / Pre-Charge Delay

The intake period refers to the period of time between the beginning of the investigation and the eventual swearing the Information and sending of disclosure to the Crown.

This period can be divided into two types of delay:

1. delay between the offence occurring and the reporting to police
2. delay between the reporting of the offence and the police laying a charge

The intake period will vary on the type of charges investigated.

Drinking and driving cases typically have an intake period of roughly two months.

Re-Scheduling of trial time

This period of time concerns delay resulting from the inability to finish the trial during the initial time booked.

It is generally expected that incomplete cases will be given priority over other matters in court. Delays due to re-scheduling of trial time is treated as institutional delay or as part of the inherent time requirements. Gross underestimate of the time requirements for trial will be attributable to institutional delay.

Defence counsel are not expected to "hold themselves in a state of perpetual availability."

Institutional or Systemic Delay

Institutional or systemic delays arise where the case is ready for trial but "trial a judge, courtroom or essential court staff may not be available and so the case cannot go on." It "runs from the time the parties are ready for trial and continues until the system can accommodate the proceedings."

The Supreme Court in Morin suggested a "guideline of between 8 and 10 months for institutional delay in Provincial Courts."

Delay required to hold judicial pre-trial conferences are attributable as institutional delay.

The failure of courts to identify "true availability of dates within the system" may risk the rights under s.11(d) to becomes "meaningless."

Institutional Delay is Attributed to the Crown

Institutional delay is attributable to the Crown. This is because delays caused by lack of institutional resources should not be legitimized as acceptable reasons for delay.

Inherent Delays

By contrast "inherent delay" are those that are necessary to move a case forward. The more complicated the case the longer the preparation time will be required. In addition, counsel "cannot be expected to devote their time exclusively to one case." The inherent delays are excusable. This is determined on a case by case basis.

Inherent time requirements are neutral periods that do not count against accused or the Crown.

Time spent scheduling, preparing and conducting pre-trial hearings are considered inherent time requirements.

While the accused is struggling to retain and keep counsel, the court and Crown are in a "holding pattern" and that time is attributed as inherent delay.

Complexity

The more "complex case is, the longer it will take counsel to prepare, the longer it will take to assemble witnesses and evidence, and the longer the trial may take."

Mis-estimating Requirements

Where counsel mis-estimate the time it will take to prosecute the case resulting in an adjournment to finish the case will normally count as "inherent time requirement."

Multiple Accused

Where there are multiple co-accused or multiple charges the inherent time requirements will increase.

Judgement Under Reserve

The time in which a judgment is under reserve is generally considered an inherent time requirement.

In exceptional circumstances, such as an 11 month delay for a decision on a directed verdict, would constitute unreasonable delay.

Accused Caused Delay

Where delay is largely "attributable to the accused" or defence counsel, a prima facie case of unreasonable delay cannot bemade out.

Defence counsel cannot be expected to be perpetually available.

The accused cannot use adjournment either requested or consented to by defence as weighing in favour of unreasonable delay.

Time taken for the accused to find counsel is usually treated as attributable to the accused.

Where delay is contributed to by the defence's use of the preliminary inquiry as a lengthy discovery it cannot be used towards unreasonable delay.

The Crown may show that some delay was attributable to the accused where there were earlier dates available for a defence application or where the delay is relating to providing disclosure but there was a delay in requesting disclosure. If established, the onus shifts to the defence to show that the earlier dates were not available to defence or that the earlier dates would not have sped things up, or that relevance did not become apparent until later.

Pre-trial motions advanced by the accused will often mean that the resultant delay will be attributable to the accused. This includes motions such as:

• resisting extradition
• change of venue
• challenge a search warrant
• quashing the order of committal

Crown Caused Delay

Any delay caused by the Crown is not excusable when calculating the total time of delay.

There are two categories of crown delay: (1) delay caused by decisions at the core of prosecutorial discretion and (2) decisions concerning adjournments, disclosure, and change in manner of proceedings. Those of the first category are only reviewable for abuse of process and otherwise cannot be attributed against the crown. The second category is reviewable for crown caused delay.

Where the Crown refuses disclosure and is subsequently ordered to disclose documents, the delay arising from the refusal is attributable to the Crown.

Complexity of the Case

A particularly complex case that requires lengthy documentary evidence may tolerate longer delays that normal cases. The Crown must present "cogent evidence that proves the complexity of the case."

Insufficiency of resources alone is not an indicator of a high degree of complexity.

The need for technical expertise to examine the computer does not necessarily make a case complex for The purpose of Morin analysis.

Complexity remains an important factor under the transitional exception cases under the Jordan Framework.

Child Pornography Offences

The Police are permitted to triage their analysis of computers by conducting preliminary analysis and then holding off on full analysis until after it was clear there would be a contest of the charges.

An intake period of 9 months for child pornography charges can be reasonable given that much of the investigation occurs after charges and the frequent need for breaks while categorizing the materials.

Delayed Disclosure

Failure to make timely disclosure will cause delay attributable to the Crown.

It is not necessary that the defence have the Crown expert report before being able to make election and plea. The use of trial confirmation hearings one or two months before trial can be used as delivery dates for remaining reports. If reports are not disclosed, it would be entitled a defence adjournment at the cost of the Crown.

When Crown protection of privilege results in delay is attributable to the Crown.

Other Circumstances

Crown requests for an adjournment is a Crown delay.

The time accrued during which a Crown stay of proceedings under s. 579 of the Code has been invoked will be attributable to the Crown.

Classifying Delay

Delay that is unrelated to defence does not presumptively or automatically attribute to the Crown.

Delay Caused by Unavailable Defence Counsel on Crown Adjournment

Where Crown offers a trial date after the original adjourned trial date, additional delay after that offered date due to defence counsel's unavailability was found to be neutral.

Defence counsel's unavailability after a denied date due to Crown and Court's unavailability is not attributable to the Crown.

Unforeseen Crown Adjournments

Crown adjournment for unforeseen factors can be considered neutral.

Delays Cause by Defence Pre-Trial Motions

The delays necessary to hear defence motions are neutral.

Delay Caused by Conflict of Interest

Delay caused by the judge recusing himself as he had previously represented the accused when he was a lawyer was considered neutral.

Caused by Co-accused

Delay caused by the inaction of a co-accused will generally be seen as neutral. However, delay caused by the Crown assisting one party to the detriment of another may be attributed to the crown.

Delay for a Re-Trial

A retrial should be scheduled "without further delay". Only a "short period" of delay will be expected. Anything longer may open the possibility of a s. 11(b) Charter delay.

Delay by Crown Attempting to Assist in Obtaining 3rd Party Records

Where the Crown agrees to obtain materials that are third party records, the delay that results from their participation is either neutral or inherent time.

Factors "Outside" of Court Proceedings

Delay due to "weather conditions or infrastructure problems; illnesses of key witnesses, parties or the court; interference by outside agencies not caused by the state; or conflicting court obligations by the accused person" are all treated as neutral unless there is some unusual situation.

Delay Caused by Missing or Absconding Accused

There is no obligation on the part of the accused to voluntarily return to the jurisdiction to face prosecution. Refusal to return does not waive the delay in prosecution.