R v Meisner

R. v. Meisner

2004 CanLII 30221 (ON CA)
Court of Appeal for Ontario — McMurtry C.J.O., Doherty and Lang JJ.A. | September 17, 2004

Background

Robert Meisner was charged with a summary conviction offence and his trial was scheduled to proceed. However, just before the trial began, Meisner's lawyer properly advised the trial judge of a potential conflict of interest — the judge had some prior connection to Meisner or his family from when the judge was practicing as a lawyer. Recognizing the ethical issue, the trial judge appropriately decided he should not conduct the trial.

The problem was that all other trial courts were engaged that day, so the trial had to be adjourned. The court offered December dates to reschedule, but Meisner's counsel was only available in January. This created a three-month delay, which Meisner argued violated his Charter right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

Issues

1. Whether the three-month delay caused by the judge's conflict of interest constituted a breach of section 11(b) of the Charter
2. How courts should treat delays caused by unforeseeable circumstances that are nobody's fault

The Neutral Delay Principle

The Court of Appeal established an important principle about unavoidable delays in the justice system. They ruled that some delays are simply "neutral" — meaning they don't count against either the Crown or the defence when calculating whether section 11(b) has been breached. Just like "intake time" is allowed when a case first enters the system, courts must also allow reasonable time to reschedule matters that are adjourned for legitimate, unforeseeable reasons.

The court emphasized that the conflict of interest was discovered and handled properly by both the lawyer and the judge. This type of situation "happens from time to time in the criminal process for which no one can be faulted and which almost inevitably requires an adjournment and rescheduling." The three-month delay to accommodate the rescheduling was reasonable, and the court treated this period as neutral for Charter purposes.

Key Takeaway

Not all delays in getting to trial count as Charter breaches — some are just the reality of how the justice system works.

If your trial gets delayed due to circumstances beyond anyone's control (like a judge's conflict of interest), courts will likely treat reasonable rescheduling time as "neutral delay" that doesn't violate your Charter rights. The key is that the delay must be for legitimate reasons and the new timeline must be reasonable.