R v Nguyen

R. v. Nguyen

2020 ONCA 609
Court of Appeal for Ontario — Gillese J.A. (Strathy C.J.O. and Watt J.A. concurring) | September 30, 2020

Background

Leonardo Graci was charged with speeding 80 km/h in a 60 km/h zone on March 8, 2017. Phuong Nguyen was charged with failing to stop at a red light on April 12, 2017. Both defendants requested trial dates, received disclosure, and then filed Charter section 11(b) applications claiming their right to be tried within a reasonable time had been violated.

Graci's case took 12 months and 12 days from charge to trial. Nguyen's took 13 months and 10 days. Both were convicted after their delay applications were dismissed — Graci paid a $90 fine, Nguyen got hit with $260. They appealed, arguing the delays were unreasonable and that Provincial Offences Act cases should have a lower ceiling than the 18-month standard set by the Supreme Court's Jordan decision.

Issues

1. Does the 18-month presumptive ceiling from R. v. Jordan apply to Provincial Offences Act proceedings, or should POA cases have a lower ceiling?
2. Were the appellants entitled to stays despite their delays being below the presumptive ceiling?

The 18-Month Rule Applies to Everything

The appellants argued that POA proceedings should have a shorter delay ceiling because they're supposed to be "speedy" and "streamlined" compared to criminal cases. The Court of Appeal rejected this completely, relying heavily on the Supreme Court's recent decision in R. v. K.J.M.

Justice Gillese explained that K.J.M. made it crystal clear: the Jordan ceilings apply uniformly to all provincial court proceedings, regardless of the type of case. The Supreme Court specifically said that creating different ceilings "would quickly become impracticable" and "would be incompatible with the uniform-ceiling approach adopted in Jordan." Whether it's a criminal case, a youth case, or a Highway Traffic Act ticket — 18 months is the line.

No Sympathy for Weak Delay Applications

Since both delays were well under 18 months, the appellants had to prove two things: (1) they took steps to move their cases along, and (2) their cases took "markedly longer" than reasonable. They failed on both counts.

The justices of the peace found that neither defendant did anything to secure earlier trial dates — they simply waited for whatever date they were given. The Court of Appeal also rejected their argument that anything over 10-11 months is automatically "markedly longer" than reasonable for simple POA cases. The court emphasized that trial judges know their local conditions and can assess what's reasonable in their jurisdiction.

Key Takeaway

POA defendants get the same 18-month delay protection as criminal defendants, but that doesn't make delay applications any easier to win.

If your case is under 18 months, you need to show you actively tried to speed things up AND that your case took much longer than similar cases typically do in that courthouse. Simply arguing that traffic tickets should move faster won't cut it.