R v Szewczyk

R. v. Szewczyk

2012 ONCJ 680
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice of the Peace Kenneth W. Dechert | October 29, 2012

Background

John Szewczyk was caught speeding 134 km/hr in a 100 km/hr zone on Highway 403 near Burlington at 1:27 a.m. on February 9, 2011. He received his ticket on the spot, and the officer filed the certificate two days later. Szewczyk filed his notice of intention to appear on February 22, 2011, requesting a first attendance meeting with the prosecutor.

What should have been a straightforward speeding case turned into a marathon. Szewczyk postponed his first attendance meeting, then failed to show up entirely. The court issued a trial notice for February 17, 2012 — nearly a year later. When that trial date arrived, Szewczyk launched a Charter application claiming his right to be tried within a reasonable time had been violated. The case dragged on through May 2012, with final judgment reserved until October 29, 2012.

Issues

1. Did the 20-month delay violate Szewczyk's Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time?
2. Was Szewczyk entitled to a stay of proceedings as a remedy?

The Charter Analysis

Justice of the Peace Dechert applied the four-part test from R. v. Morin: length of delay, waiver, reasons for delay, and prejudice to the accused. The total delay was 20 months and 18 days — clearly long enough to warrant scrutiny.

The court allocated blame carefully. About 11 months and 22 days were institutional delay (the system's fault). But Szewczyk bore responsibility for 3 months and 24 days of delay — filing his notice 11 days after the certificate, postponing his first attendance, failing to show up, and launching the Charter application at trial. Another 5 months were considered neutral "inherent time requirements."

The critical factor was prejudice. While the institutional delay exceeded the Morin guidelines (8-10 months for provincial court), Justice Dechert found no evidence Szewczyk had actually suffered harm. He wasn't in custody, faced no restrictive bail conditions, and presented no evidence the delay affected his ability to defend himself. The court noted that "any stigma arising out of the delay in the trial of charges like speeding is virtually non-existent."

Key Takeaway

Even excessive court delays won't automatically get your ticket thrown out — you need to prove the delay actually harmed you.

This case shows that while courts take Charter applications seriously, they won't grant stays for minor offences without evidence of real prejudice. The system can tolerate longer delays for speeding tickets than for serious criminal charges.