R v Tricker

R. v. Tricker

2008 ONCJ 510
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice F.M. Finnestad | October 21, 2008

Background

Christopher Tricker was charged on May 28, 2007 with impaired driving and driving over 80mg. Nothing fancy about this case — just your standard drinking and driving charges. Tricker's first court appearance was June 12, 2007, and like most defendants, he needed time to get disclosure and hire a lawyer. By September 24, 2007, both sides were ready to set a trial date.

Here's where things went sideways. The court required a judicial pre-trial for all drinking and driving cases, but the earliest available slot wasn't until December 18, 2007 — nearly three months later. After that pre-trial, they finally set a trial date for October 8, 2008. Total time from charge to trial: 12.5 months, with the bulk of that delay caused by institutional limitations at the courthouse.

Issues

1. Did the 12.5-month delay from charge to trial violate Tricker's Charter right to trial within a reasonable time?
2. Should the charges be stayed as a remedy for this Charter breach?

The Section 11(b) Charter Analysis

Justice Finnestad applied the test from R. v. Morin, which looks at several factors: length of delay, waiver, reasons for delay, and prejudice. The operative delay here was 12.5 months — well beyond the Supreme Court's guideline of 8-10 months for provincial court cases. Tricker never waived his right to a speedy trial.

The critical finding was that institutional limitations caused virtually all the delay. The three-month wait for a judicial pre-trial was "attributable entirely to the unavailability of resources." Neither Tricker nor the Crown contributed meaningfully to the delay. While Tricker couldn't prove specific prejudice like job loss or health problems, the court found there was "inferred prejudice" — the kind that automatically flows from excessive delay.

The Crown argued the court should overlook the delay because drinking and driving is serious and needs to be tried on its merits. Justice Finnestad acknowledged this public interest but found it didn't justify a delay several months beyond the guidelines. In a case with no actual prejudice but also no excuse for the institutional delay, the guidelines should be respected as "the outer limits of acceptable delay."

Key Takeaway

Even serious charges like impaired driving can be stayed if the system takes too long to bring you to trial.

If your case is taking longer than 8-10 months to get to trial due to court delays (not your own actions), you may have grounds for a Charter application. Document the reasons for each adjournment and keep track of who's causing the delays.