Filters
Categories
Family
Criminal
Torts
all
active
trending
archived
R. v. Jordan
Federal Court
Docket #: 06-123; 07-12; 06-5001
VIEW

[Family: Archived]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

R. v. Jordan
Federal Court
Docket #: 06-123; 07-12; 06-5001
VIEW

[Torts: Active]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

R. v. Jordan
Federal Court
Docket #: 06-123; 07-12; 06-5001
VIEW

[Criminal: Active]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

R. v. Jordan
Federal Court
Docket #: 06-123; 07-12; 06-5001
VIEW

[Criminal: Trending]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

R. v. Jordan
Federal Court
Docket #: 06-123; 07-12; 06-5001
VIEW

[Family: Trending]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

R. v. Jordan
Federal Court
Docket #: 06-123; 07-12; 06-5001
VIEW

[Torts: Archived]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

R. v. Jordan
Federal Court
Docket #: 06-123; 07-12; 06-5001
VIEW

[Criminal: Archived]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

R. v. Jordan
Federal Court
Docket #: 06-123; 07-12; 06-5001
VIEW

[Torts: Trending]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

R. v. Jordan
Federal Court
Docket #: 06-123; 07-12; 06-5001
VIEW

[Family: Active]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

"Dope on a Rope"

Heffernan v. Knights of Columbus

This case has its origins in the December 2008 arrest of the appellant following an investigation into a “dial-a-dope” drug operation. Various delays prevented the trial from taking place before September 2012. The appellant was either detained or under strict bail conditions during that time, and challenged the constitutionality of the delay under s.11(b) of the Charter. The delay was found to be reasonable at trial and on appeal.

Updates

1.

The new framework for s. 11 (b) can be summarized as follows:

There is a ceiling beyond which delay becomes presumptively unreasonable. The presumptive ceiling is 18 months for cases tried in the provincial court, and 30 months for cases in the superior court (or cases tried in the provincial court after a preliminary inquiry). Defence delay does not count towards the presumptive ceiling.
Once the presumptive ceiling is exceeded, the burden shifts to the Crown to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness on the basis of exceptional circumstances. Exceptional circumstances lie outside the Crown’s control in that (1) they are reasonably unforeseen or reasonably unavoidable, and (2) they cannot reasonably be remedied. If the exceptional circumstance relates to a discrete event, the delay reasonably attributable to that event is subtracted. If the exceptional circumstance arises from the case’s complexity, the delay is reasonable.Below the presumptive ceiling, in clear cases, the defence may show that the delay is unreasonable. To do so, the defence must establish two things: (1) it took meaningful steps that demonstrate a sustained effort to expedite the proceedings; and (2) the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

What is your prediction?

WIN

LOSE

3 AREAS OF LAW

Was there a proper reason for the delay?

YES

NO

Was their Prejudice to the accused's interests?

YES

NO

Will the Supreme Court find issues with the current morin framework?

YES

NO

PLAYER ANALYSIS

[

2

]

Player Analysis (2)

YourUsername
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
BENZ_MAN
39

While some of the positives of the decision may include providing a clear deadline by which cases need to be prosecuted, it also has the effect of giving the Crown no incentive to accelerate cases that would be completed well below the Jordan guidelines. The stark deadline also forces the Crown to insist on s 11(b) defence waivers and to viciously protect the record, even during routine adjournment stages. To make matters worse, the overarching timelines set by Jordan appear to be arbitrarily chosen.

Jays Fanatic
39

I believe a new framework will be established that changes the current framework for lengthy delays as the Morin framework is outdated and breeds a system of complacency and delay within the legal system. The new system will most likely be one that incorporates harder deadlines for the crown to meet as well as guidelines in the test that ensure less confusion and onus on the criminal party involved.