R v Stitt

R. v. Stitt

2013 ONCJ 44
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice D.A. Harris | January 31, 2013

Background

Ryan Stitt was charged on July 16, 2011 with assault with a weapon, two counts of assault, two counts of unlawful confinement, and criminal harassment. He was released on bail and retained lawyer Mr. Raftery to represent him. From September 2011 through March 2012, Stitt's counsel repeatedly requested adjournments to pursue plea negotiations with the Crown. These discussions were complicated when the Crown counsel became unavailable due to a death in his family.

It wasn't until March 19, 2012 — eight months after the charges — that Stitt's lawyer indicated he wanted to set a trial date. However, he hadn't completed the mandatory pre-trial requirements for the Niagara jurisdiction, including an Issues and Time Estimate Meeting (ITEM) and Judicial Pre-Trial (JPT). The trial was finally set for February 21, 2013. In December 2012, Stitt brought a Charter application claiming his section 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time had been violated.

Issues

1. Whether the 19-month delay from charge to trial violated Stitt's Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time
2. Who was responsible for the various components of the delay

The Section 11(b) Analysis

Justice Harris applied the standard four-part test from R. v. Morin: length of delay, waiver, reasons for delay, and prejudice. While the 19-month delay was sufficient to trigger judicial scrutiny, the court found most of it was caused by Stitt's own choices. His lawyer spent eight months pursuing plea negotiations before even attempting to set a trial date — despite there being no rule preventing him from setting a date while continuing negotiations.

The court was particularly critical of the delay caused by Stitt's lawyer's failure to understand local court practices. Mr. Raftery, an experienced Hamilton lawyer who occasionally practiced in Niagara, should have known that ITEM meetings and JPTs were mandatory. The court rejected the argument that Crown counsel should have advised defence counsel of local requirements, noting that experienced lawyers should inform themselves of jurisdiction-specific rules.

From when Stitt was actually ready for trial (June 11, 2012) to the trial date (February 21, 2013), only 8.5 months passed — well within the Morin guidelines of 8-10 months for provincial court cases.

Key Takeaway

You can't create delay through your own choices and then complain about it violating your Charter rights.

While the accused has a right to negotiate with the Crown, deliberately deferring trial preparation and ignoring local court rules will not support a successful delay application. The clock effectively starts ticking for institutional delay only when you're actually ready to proceed to trial.