R v Andrade

Her Majesty The Queen Ex. Rel. City of Toronto v. Andrade and Hariraj

2011 ONCJ (unreported)
Ontario Court of Justice (Toronto Region) — Justice Libman | September 15, 2011

Background

Isidro Andrade got a ticket on July 4, 2008 for "obstruct plate" and "unreasonable noise." He filed his notice to appear on August 1, 2008, but didn't get his trial notice until November 3, 2008 — scheduling his trial for July 2, 2009. That's almost a full year from ticket to trial date.

Richard Hariraj got a speeding ticket on March 12, 2009. He filed his notice to appear just four days later on March 16, 2009, got his trial notice on May 20, 2009, with a trial date of February 16, 2010. Again, nearly a year of waiting.

Both defendants brought Charter s. 11(b) applications arguing their right to be tried within a reasonable time had been violated. The Justices of the Peace agreed and stayed both proceedings. The City of Toronto appealed both stays.

Issues

1. What constitutes a reasonable "intake period" for processing Part I Provincial Offences Act tickets in Toronto?
2. How much institutional delay is constitutionally tolerable for minor traffic offences?
3. Were these delays unreasonable under Charter s. 11(b)?

The Intake Period Problem

Justice Libman discovered a fundamental problem with Toronto's scheduling system. The City wasn't scheduling trials based on when defendants filed their notices — they were scheduling based on the charging officer's "productivity." High-volume ticket writers ("high writers") got earlier trial dates than low-volume officers ("low writers"). Andrade's trial was delayed specifically because his ticketing officer was "a low volume officer [and] would therefore be late in the scheduling sequence."

The court found this system unfair because it gave defendants no input into their trial scheduling, unlike almost every other type of criminal or quasi-criminal proceeding in Ontario. The judge established that a reasonable intake period should be 30-45 days — not the several months Toronto was taking.

Institutional Delay Guidelines

Applying the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Morin, Justice Libman confirmed that the 8-10 month guideline for institutional delay applies to Provincial Offences Act prosecutions. However, he noted that simple traffic tickets should move faster than complex criminal cases because they typically involve just one witness (the officer) and straightforward legal issues.

After accounting for reasonable intake periods, Andrade faced 9 months of institutional delay and Hariraj faced 10 months — both at or beyond the constitutional limits.

Key Takeaway

Courts will not tolerate unfair administrative procedures that cause unreasonable delay, even for minor traffic offences.

If you're facing a long delay to trial, document when you filed your notice to appear and when you received your trial date. Delays approaching or exceeding one year from offence to trial date may violate your Charter rights, especially if the delay is caused by inefficient court administration rather than case complexity.