Supreme Court rejects a fixed ceiling on sentencing delays

Protection against excessive court delays does not end with the verdict. The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that principle in its unanimous September 11 ruling in R. v. R. B.-C. It nevertheless declined to impose a maximum number of months for all sentencing proceedings. [2]

A case-by-case assessment

The court rejected the five-month ceiling adopted in the Ontario decision Charley. The test is whether the wait was markedly longer than would reasonably have been necessary in the circumstances. The duration must therefore be assessed against the particular case, rather than simply compared with a uniform threshold. [2]

Section 11(b) of the Charter guarantees anyone charged with an offence the right to be tried within a reasonable time. The constitutional text does not itself specify a number of months. Courts must give effect to that protection when examining the stages of a case and the remedy for a breach. [3]

Protection continues after the verdict

The ceilings associated with the Jordan ruling concern the period between the charge and the end of the trial. The September 11 decision distinguishes that period from the one following conviction. It nevertheless maintains constitutional protection until the sentence is imposed. [1]

According to The Canadian Press, the court found no compelling evidence of a widespread culture of complacency in sentencing. That assessment explains its refusal to set an automatic ceiling at this stage. It does not mean that sentencing delays are unimportant or that any wait is acceptable. [2]

In the case before the court, a breach was recognized, but the requested stay of proceedings was refused. The sentence reduced to twenty months was upheld. The distinction matters: recognizing excessive delay and choosing the appropriate remedy are separate judicial questions. [1]

Choosing a remedy

Section 24 of the Charter allows a person whose rights have been infringed to ask a court for a remedy that is appropriate and just in the circumstances. The ruling illustrates that approach: protecting a constitutional right requires an effective response, the form of which must be assessed in relation to the case. [3]