Page 102

Nov Advocate 2017

900 V O L . 7 5 P A R T 6 N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 7 THE ADVOCATE (a) the Chief Justice or the Associate Chief Justice or their designate estimates that 60 court days or more will be required for the trial, including all voir dires and other pre-trial applications, (b) the Chief Justice or the Associate Chief Justice or their designate determines that the case is unusually complex, or (c) the Crown has preferred a direct indictment under s. 577 of the Criminal Code, and the Chief Justice or the Associate Chief Justice or their designate determines that the case should be subject to the practice direction. 2. The Chief Justice or the Associate Chief Justice or their designate will usually make the estimate or determinations described in paragraph 1 (a), (b), and (c) at or around the time of the accused person’s first appearance in the Court, generally after consultation with Crown and defence counsel or the accused person. 3. A case may at any time be removed from or brought within the ambit of the practice direction. One or more of the parties may apply on this point to the Chief Justice or the Associate Chief Justice, the case management judge, or the trial judge. Or, any of those judges may reconsider the point on his or her own initiative, generally after consultation with Crown and defence counsel or the accused person. On any determination, application, or reconsideration of whether a case should be treated as subject to the practice direction, the guidelines in sub-paragraphs 1 (a) through (c) will usually frame the analysis. However, the parties may identify additional considerations, or may point out, for example, why a case that appears to fall within sub-paragraphs (a) through (c) will not require the intense case management for which the practice direction provides, or why an apparently short and straightforward case will require that case management. MILESTONES AS THE CASE PROGRESSES THROUGH THE COURT The following paragraphs set out the timelines that are expected to apply to cases subject to this practice direction. The timelines are not aligned with the ceilings set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, where the Court discussed an accused person’s right under s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to a trial within a reasonable time. Recognizing the complexity of the cases to which this practice direction applies, the practice direction speaks more generally of the Court’s expectations of how these cases will be managed as they progress toward trial. Determinations of alleged breaches of s. 11(b), should this issue arise in a com-


Nov Advocate 2017
To see the actual publication please follow the link above