This is an application for a stay of proceedings pursuant to sections 11(B) regarding unreasonable delay of proceedings and 24(1) of the Charter.
Steven Jackson was charged with eight counts on an indictment, including assault, assault with a weapon, mischief, criminal harassment, uttering a threat to cause death, and uttering threats to kill an animal. The allegations involved persistent intimate partner violence against his wife of 31 years.
Jackson made the application for a stay on the ground that the unreasonably delay in his trial for 33 months infringes on his s.11(b) Charter rights, which was three months and 14 days over the ceiling set in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, and is presumptively unreasonable.
The Court reviewed the decision in Jordan, where the Supreme Court of Canada set out a new framework which introduced presumptive ceilings for a timely trial. In the Ontario Court of Justice, the presumptive ceiling is 18 months, and in the Superior Court of Justice the presumptive ceiling is 30 months. Anything beyond the specified ceilings is presumptively unreasonable and the onus lies with the Crown to rebut this presumption by referring to exceptional circumstances (para. 21). It also reviewed the procedural history, beginning in July 2022, including the Applicant’s arrest due to the contents of his affidavit included in the Supplementary Application Record filed on June 25, 2024, for this matter. His affidavit included a video of his wife in which she can be seen nude, as well as a still image taken from that video, which her counsel indicated was taken without consent (para. 14-15). It was this incident where the Court found that the Crown had failed to establish that the delay caused by the voyeurism charge constituted an exceptional circumstance: While the voyeurism charge was unexpected, the police and Crown’s handling of the arrest and investigation was not unforeseeable (para. 40-45).
The Court acknowledged that this was a difficult conclusion considering the circumstances of this case given that the charges of intimate partner violence facing Jackson are serious and disturbing. The decision quoted from R. v. Vrbanic, 2025 ONCA 151, at para.63:
“One might be tempted to reason that this is “close enough.” However, as I have already noted, in Jordan, at para. 56, the majority made clear that the presumptive ceiling “is not an aspirational target. Rather, it is the point at which delay becomes presumptively unreasonable.” The hard ceilings in Jordan give practical effect to this principle. A “close enough” approach would foster the uncertainty and culture of complacency rejected by Jordan.” (para. 49)
The Application was granted and the charges were stayed.
https://canlii.ca/t/kb1t6