R v Bennett

R. v. Bennett

[1991] O.J. No. 884
Court of Appeal for Ontario — Dubin C.J.O., Arbour and Osborne JJ.A. | May 31, 1991

Background

Bennett got charged with assault causing bodily harm after a hotel fight in Bruce Mines in September 1989. When he showed up in Provincial Court in Thessalon in October, the earliest trial date available was June 7, 1990 — eight and a half months away. His lawyer agreed to that date. But when June 7 rolled around, Bennett elected trial by District Court judge instead, converting his trial into a preliminary inquiry. After getting committed for trial, he had to wait another four and a half months for his actual trial date in November 1990.

That's when Bennett's lawyer stood up and said: this whole thing has taken too long, Your Honour. Thirteen and a half months from charge to trial violates my client's Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b). The trial judge agreed and stayed the proceedings — essentially throwing out the case without a trial. The Crown appealed.

Issues

1. Was an eight-month delay to get a trial date in Provincial Court unreasonable?
2. Should the Supreme Court's "six to eight months" guideline from Askov apply to all courts across Canada?
3. Did Bennett waive his right to complain about delay when his lawyer agreed to the June trial date?

The Askov Aftermath

This case came right after the Supreme Court's bombshell decision in R. v. Askov, which had trial judges staying criminal charges left, right and center. Between October 1990 and April 1991, over 34,000 charges got stayed in Ontario alone — including 8,600 impaired driving cases. The trial judge here looked at Askov's "six to eight months" language and figured: if that's too long for the worst court in Canada (Peel), then eight months must be too long everywhere else.

The Court of Appeal said: not so fast. Justice Arbour explained that you can't just apply Peel's numbers to every courthouse in Ontario. Provincial Court in Algoma handles way more cases than District Court in Peel, and you need time for all the preliminary stuff — getting a lawyer, disclosure, deciding on your plea. Different courts, different reasonable delays. The Supreme Court wanted courts to compare themselves to similar jurisdictions, not apply a one-size-fits-all rule.

The Reality Check

Justice Dubin delivered some hard truths in his judgment. Many accused people don't actually want speedy trials — delay often helps the defence as witnesses forget details and evidence gets stale. An accused "escaping trial on the merits, not because he was wronged in any real sense, but rather because he successfully played the waiting game" doesn't exactly enhance public confidence in justice.

The Court also noted that Bennett had the chance for trial within eight and a half months but chose to convert it into a preliminary inquiry by electing District Court. That delay should generally be attributed to the accused's choices, not the system's failures.

Key Takeaway

Charter applications for unreasonable delay require balancing multiple factors — not just counting months on a calendar.

Courts must consider the total delay, reasons for delay, whether you waived your rights by agreeing to dates, and actual prejudice you suffered. Simply pointing to a delay longer than some magic number won't automatically get your case thrown out.