The position of the highest court in the country is endorsed by eight of the nine judges.

In this case, the Crown has tried since 2018 to conduct a second trial to try a Quebecer who was acquitted of seven counts of sexual assault in 2017. The septuagenarian could not be identified due to the publication ban.

His second trial could not be conducted because the man successfully used Jordan’s decision based on delays in his first trial.

However, most Supreme Court judges have now revoked the permanence of legal proceedings by ruling that delays of the first trial cannot be considered. The accused will therefore have to defend himself again in the Court of Québec.

” The issuance of an order for a new trial has the effect of setting the hands of the constitutional clock that calculates the delay back to zero. “

However, Judge Wagner determined that it was possible to consider the delays for the first time in some exceptional circumstancesalthough this does not apply in this case.

The majority of judges believe the defendant was late in applying Jordan’s decision, which establishes a maximum ceiling of 18 months in provincial court and 30 months for superior courts.

Respondent failed to act on time. In fact, before or during the holding of his first trial the respondent did not raise the violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time, read. Nor did he make any such submission to the Court of Appeal after the Crown decided to appeal the judgment.

Last challenge with deadlines destroying the proper administration of justicedecided by the Supreme Court.

Disagreeing judge Suzanne Côté, for her part, assessed that the defendant could not be blamed for not using Jordan’s decision in his first trial – before the Quebec Court – because he hoped to be acquitted. .

The man was acquitted in February 2017. The total delay between the time of the charge and the verdict was just over 72 months, of which 62 months could be attributed to the Crown, and the defendant did not invite inappropriate that delay.

However, in June 2018, the Court of Appeal dismissed the acquittal, citing the trial judge’s errors of law, and ordered a new trial. Following this decision the accused requested cessation of the trial based on the issue of undue delay, even though the new trial will end at the end of May 2019, i.e., 11 months after the decision to order a new trial.

In February 2019, the judge hearing the new trial agreed with the defendant, considering that the delays in the first trial were unreasonable, and ordered the cessation of the proceedings. The Crown appealed this decision.

In May 2020, three judges of the Court of Appeal unanimously adopted this decision. The court clarified that although the initial trial has ended, it does not mean that the defendant’s rights have expired.

The Supreme Court reversed this decision. The accused will therefore have to undergo a new trial in the Court of Quebec.