Charter s.11(b)
Unreasonable Delay #
Overview #
This page contains information about use of the “Unreasonable Delay” defence for various criminal charges in Canada. It was written and prepared by experienced criminal defence lawyers in Toronto but does not consist of legal advice.
Share on print
Print
Table of Contents
Add a header to begin generating the table of contents
Scroll to Top
Unreasonable Delay as Legal Defence #
Breach of the to be tried within a reasonable time or without
unreasonable delay (Section 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms).
What this Means #
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms sets out certain rights that a person has. Section 11(b) of The Charter protects every person’s right to be tried within a reasonable time.
Section 11(b) of the Charter applies to the period of time between the laying of the charge(s) against you and the completion of your case (excluding any appeals).
If we are successful at establishing a breach of your right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter, the remedy is a stay of proceedings meaning that the case against you is thrown out.
At Every Defence, we have successfully defended hundreds of cases by showing that our clients’ rights under the Charter were breached.
Charged with a Criminal Offence? Get Every Defence. #
Do not plead guilty without discussing your case with a lawyer. Many criminal offences have mandatory minimum sentences and a conviction will often result in a lengthy jail sentence. Being found guilty may result in negative employment, immigration and personal consequences to you and your family for years to come.
You are presumed innocent. With over 25 years of successful trial experience, Norm and Marcus will argue for every defence available to you and ensure that all of your rights are protected. We will fight for the positive result you need to move on with your life. Speak with Norm and Marcus. Call (416) 855-7799 or email us at [email protected]. We accept calls 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Confidentiality guaranteed. Free consultations. Meeting by appointment only.
Recent Successes #
Charter ApplicationCharter ApplicationSearch WarrantSearch WarrantTrafficking DrugsTrafficking Drugs
R. v. A.F — Drug Trafficking Charges Withdrawn
#
Our client was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. Police executed a search warrant at our client’s residence and seized a large amount of cocaine as well as cutting agents, scales, baggies and cash. We filed a Charter application alleging breaches of our client’s rights to counsel, his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and his right to be free from arbitrary detention. After reviewing our Charter application, the Crown Attorney agreed to withdraw this charge. Note: This is a case where the police obtained a search warrant
Charges WithdrawnFirearmsTrafficking Drugs
R. v. T.B. — Cocaine Trafficking and Gun Charges Withdrawn
#
Our client was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of explosives and a restricted firearm with ammunition. Police received a complaint from a man who alleged that he had just been in a fight with our client in front of our client’s house and that our client said he was going inside to get a gun. Because the complaint involved a firearm, more than a dozen police officers immediately attended at our client’s house. The police claimed that when they arrived, they saw the lights of a vehicle in the driveway flash on and off and saw a man run into a wooded area. A short time later, officers found our client in the wooded area and arrested him. They then immediately searched our client’s home and the car in the driveway. In the house, they found a large quantity of cocaine and other items consistent with drug trafficking. In the car, they found a firearm that was stored with ammunition and other explosives. Upon a review of the disclosure, we discovered that several of the police officers noted inconsistent explanations for why they decided to search the house and the car immediately rather than applying for a search warrant. Furthermore, we could prove that the explanations given by several of the officers were untrue. We believed that the police knew they did not have a lawful justification for searching the home and that a search warrant would not have been granted had they applied for one. After a number of pretrials with the Crown and a judge, the Crown agreed to withdraw these charges. Note: This is a case where the police did not obtain a search warrant
Charges WithdrawnImpaired DrivingNo Criminal RecordOver 80
R. v. S.R. — Impaired Driving Charges Withdrawn and No Criminal Record
#
Our client, who was an off-duty police officer, was pulled over by police after someone called 911 to report an erratic driver on the highway. The arresting officer claimed that he then observed our client driving at a hight rate of speed while weaving back and forth. Our client was pulled over, arrested and taken to a police station where he blew more than twice the legal limit. He was charged with impaired driving and over 80. Prior to trial, we filed a Charter application alleging that the arresting officer did not have reasonable and probable grounds to arrest our client and that his rights to counsel were breached because the police unjustly terminated our client’s phone call with his lawyer before it was complete. At trial, we thoroughly cross-examined the arresting officer and exposed a number of exaggerations and some outright lies. Ultimately, the persecutor determined that due to the arresting officer’s impeached credibility, the trial judge was unlikely to find out client guilty. Our client was offered a deal to plead guilty to careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act (which did not result in a criminal record or a driving suspension) in return for a withdrawal of the criminal charges. Our client was more than happy to take the deal.
Charges DismissedImpaired Driving
R. v. D.P. — Impaired Driving Charges Dismissed after Driving into Hydro Pole
#
Our client drove his pick up truck into a hydro pole located on the sidewalk of a busy street in downtown Toronto. A security guard approached the truck and saw that our client was asleep behind the wheel. Police were called and had to bang on the driver’s side window to wake our client up. After speaking with our client, police charged him with impaired driving and brought him to the police station to provide samples of his breath. At trial, we exposed significant inconsistencies between the evidence of the two officer’s on scene and between the evidence of the two officers and video footage recorded by cameras on the police car and at the police station. We also successfully argued that a number of our client’s Charter rights were breached, including his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure (the arresting officer did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe he was impaired) and is rights to counsel (he should have been given an opportunity to call a lawyer before he was taken to the police station). The trial judge excluded the results of the breath tests and found that the prosecution had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that our client was impaired. Both of the charges against our client were dismissed.
Charges DismissedImpaired DrivingOver 80
R. v. S.L. — Impaired Driving and Over 80 Charges Dismissed
#
Our client was involved in an accident on Highway 401 as a result of sideswiping another car. A police officer arrived a few minutes later and after speaking to the occupants of the other vehicle, he arrested our client for impaired driving. Our client was taken to a police station to give breath samples and blew over the legal limit. She was charged with impaired driving and over 80. At trial, through effective cross-examination, we successfully discredited the arresting officer’s testimony, showing that it was unreliable. We then successfully argued that the arresting officer did not have the requisite reasonable and probable grounds to arrest our client and that the breath test results should be excluded from the trial. We also argued that the prosecution had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that our client was impaired. The trial judge accepted our arguments, finding that our client’s Charter right to be free from arbitrary detention and from unreasonable search and seizure were breached and that impairment had not been proven. Both of the charges against our client were dismissed.
