Stunt driving in Ontario crackdown

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Tokay444

On your first appearance you can request the charges withdrawn on the grounds of a charter violation of your right to a fair and speedy trial.

Canada does not have any language about a "speedy" trial.
It refers to a "timely" trial. Timely does not always mean speedy.
The ceiling for Provincial Court is normally 18 months.
The court can however extend that if there are exceptional circumstances.
The whole system is backed up for months because of the undeniable exceptional circumstances of the last 2 years.
Very unlikely that any judge will say it has been too long at this point. If it goes another year then maybe. Just maybe.
If it was me I would just remain with my mouth shut and bide my time.

[Tokay444]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Canada does not have any language about a "speedy" trial.
It refers to a "timely" trial. Timely does not always mean speedy.
The ceiling for Provincial Court is normally 18 months.
The court can however extend that if there are exceptional circumstances.
The whole system is backed up for months because of the undeniable exceptional circumstances of the last 2 years.
Very unlikely that any judge will say it has been too long at this point. If it goes another year then maybe. Just maybe.
If it was me I would just remain with my mouth shut and bide my time.

Yes they do, and I've won on this very violation twice on two tries.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Tokay444

Yes they do, and I've won on this very violation twice on two tries.

Please point out the "speedy" reference.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sj...ck/art11b.html

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Please point out the "speedy" reference.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sj...ck/art11b.html

Well, using "speedy" vs "timely" could be considered one in the same, but I think this pretty much covers the last two years and why in a traffic case pleading timely probably won't work (although it could depending on the judge):

Where the total delay (minus defence delay) exceeds the presumptive ceiling, it is presumptively unreasonable. However, the Crown may rebut this presumption by showing that the delay is reasonable due to exceptional circumstances (Jordan, supra at paragraph 68).

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Well, using "speedy" vs "timely" could be considered one in the same, but I think this pretty much covers the last two years and why in a traffic case pleading timely probably won't work (although it could depending on the judge):

Well "Speedy" implies a short time period but "timely" is a bit more open.

The way the law is written it would be pretty hard to claim there were no extenuating circumstances for the 18 month cap.
May have worked in the past but not likely to right now.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbu...ario-1.6419478
https://thefamilylawcoach.com/blog/c...nd-the-courts/

[Tokay444]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Please point out the "speedy" reference.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sj...ck/art11b.html

Section 7b of the actual charter says, ";(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;". You're arguing semantics. The charter makes not exceptions for "Extenuating circumstances."

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Tokay444

Section 7b of the actual charter says, ";(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;". You're arguing semantics. The charter makes not exceptions for "Extenuating circumstances."

The charter may not but the court rulings do apparently. See my post above.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Tokay444

Section 7b of the actual charter says, ";(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;". You're arguing semantics.

I said reasonable time. It is not semantics. Reasonable time does not equate speedy.
They even define "reasonable" as 18 months for provincial and 30 months for superior court. Neither of these would be deemed "speedy" by most people.
You are also totally ignoring the whole section that says these time limits are not in place during exceptional circumstances. The courts are backed up for years at this point so those time limits are meaningless.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

The charter may not but the court rulings do apparently. See my post above.

He is known to only read what suits him.

[Tokay444]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I said reasonable time. It is not semantics. Reasonable time does not equate speedy.
They even define "reasonable" as 18 months for provincial and 30 months for superior court. Neither of these would be deemed "speedy" by most people.
You are also totally ignoring the whole section that says these time limits are not in place during exceptional circumstances. The courts are backed up for years at this point so those time limits are meaningless.

What section of the charter says that?
That's the court's problem. No Joe Blow Public's, and the reason these rights exists.

[Tokay444]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

The charter may not but the court rulings do apparently. See my post above.

The court rulings need to be appealed.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Tokay444

The court rulings need to be appealed.

Well, go forth and challenge!

[Tokay444]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Well, go forth and challenge!

If I had have found myself in the position, I would have, as I am now with a "nullified" see revoked, firearm registration certificate.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Tokay444

What section of the charter says that?
That's the court's problem. No Joe Blow Public's, and the reason these rights exists.

You can read right?

(ii) Where presumptive ceiling is exceeded
Where the total delay (minus defence delay) exceeds the presumptive ceiling, it is presumptively unreasonable. However, the Crown may rebut this presumption by showing that the delay is reasonable due to exceptional circumstances (Jordan, supra at paragraph 68).

Exceptional circumstances are defined as those that lie outside the Crown’s control in the sense that they are: (a) reasonably unforeseen or reasonably unavoidable, and (b) such that Crown counsel cannot reasonably remedy the delays emanating from those circumstances once they arise (Jordan, supra at paragraph 69).

While the determination of whether circumstances are “exceptional” will ultimately depend on the trial judge’s good sense and experience, they will generally fall under one of two categories:

Discrete events: Discrete exceptional events or circumstances are ones that are (i) reasonably unforeseeable or unavoidable, and (ii) could not be reasonably mitigated by the Crown or the justice system (Cody, supra at paragraph 48; Jordan, supra at paragraphs 73 and 75). Delay caused by discrete events result in quantitative deductions of particular periods of time from the net total (Cody, supra at paragraph 48).