R v Rahey

Rahey v. The Queen

[1987] 1 S.C.R. 588
Supreme Court of Canada — Lamer J. | May 14, 1987

Background

In May 1978, the Minister of National Revenue began investigating Mr. Rahey for alleged contraventions of the Income Tax Act. The investigation continued for years, and in September 1981, Rahey was charged under sections 239(1)(a) and (d) of the Act with six counts of making false or deceptive returns. Some months before he was charged, on January 9, 1981, an application by the Minister to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia was granted placing Rahey's property and assets in the hands of a receiver.

The key issue arose when Rahey's trial was scheduled. On September 16, 1983, Crown counsel appeared before Judge McIntyre concerning the delay. Matters were then adjourned until September 30th, and thereafter postponed four more times. The appellant attended before the court on each of the dates listed above. The Crown refused the request and on November 1, 1983, filed an originating notice for an order in the nature of mandamus to require Judge McIntyre to render his decision on the motion for a directed verdict, to render his decision on that date, and filed November 18, 1983.

Issues

1. Whether the 11-month delay between charge and trial infringed Rahey's Charter right to trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b)
2. What remedy should be granted for an infringement of the right to be tried within a reasonable time

The Reasonable Time Analysis

The Supreme Court established a framework for analyzing s. 11(b) Charter claims that remains influential today. The Court held that in determining whether there has been an infringement of the right to be tried within a reasonable time, courts must consider: (1) the length of the delay, (2) waiver of time periods by the accused, (3) the reasons for the delay, and (4) prejudice to the accused.

Here, the Court found that an 11-month delay was presumptively unreasonable, especially given that this was not a complex case. The Crown had not provided adequate justification for the delay, and the accused had suffered prejudice through stress, anxiety, and the continuing receivership of his assets. Importantly, the Court noted that institutional delay — where the court system itself cannot provide an effective remedy — can be just and appropriate remedy in the circumstances.

The Remedy: Stay of Proceedings

The Court granted a stay of proceedings — a permanent end to the prosecution. This was significant because it established that where there has been an infringement of s. 11(b), the appropriate remedy is generally a stay of proceedings, not just an expedited trial. The Court emphasized that this remedy serves both to compensate the accused and to ensure the justice system maintains public confidence by not allowing unreasonable delays.

Key Takeaway

Unreasonable delay in getting to trial can result in charges being permanently stayed, even for serious offences.

If you're facing charges and experiencing significant delays, document everything and consider bringing a Charter application under s. 11(b). The courts will balance the length of delay, reasons for it, any waiver on your part, and prejudice you've suffered.