Skip to main content

Globe editorial: Is the Supreme Court reconsidering the Jordan decision? Let’s hope so

Criminal law, a bit like crime itself, can be quite messy. Last year, however, the Supreme Court of Canada tried to make it more efficient in order to protect accused people from having to live too long under the shadow of alleged guilt while awaiting trial.

In their split decision in the case of R. v. Jordan, the majority ruled that an individual's right to a speedy trial was presumptively violated if they had to wait more than 18 months for cases tried in provincial court, and 30 months for cases tried in superior court.

The result has been chaos. Cases involving serious offences, murder included, have been thrown out, an outcome that likely to damage the public's opinion of the justice system.

Story continues below advertisement

Read more: Courts shaken by search for solutions to delays

Five provincial attorneys-general, plus their federal equivalent, are pleading for room to manoeuvre. And a current case before the Supreme Court of Canada is giving them some hope.

R. v. Jordan involved an alleged drug trafficker in B.C. who had to wait 49 months for a verdict. Lawyers for another alleged drug trafficker, James Cody in Newfoundland, have been arguing that their client's superior court trial will have gone twice as long as the 30-month limit in the Jordan ruling if and when it is completed, and that all charges should be stayed.

They are now before the Supreme Court of Canada, where Justice Michael Moldaver, one of the coauthors of the Jordan decision, raised questions about its exacting standards in oral argument on the Cody case.

The big issue is, who is the cause of the delays in a trial – the Crown, or the defence? And who gets punished for delays? What if the accused changes – or has to change – lawyers? What if Charter challenges come up? What about complex white-collar criminal cases, often featuring thousands of documents – should such cases, which clearly need extra time, get extra time?

Michael Crystal, Mr. Cody's lawyer, has praised the Jordan decision for forcing defence lawyers and Crown attorneys to "abandon their silos and Cold War posturing." Maybe. But there's also a widespread sense that Jordan's rigidity has upset a delicate balance, causing legitimate cases of serious law-breaking to be dropped.

When it issues a ruling in the Cody case, the Supreme Court has an opportunity to restore a degree of flexibility to the courts. In doing so, it can protect the reputation of the justice system.

Story continues below advertisement

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

If your comment doesn't appear immediately it has been sent to a member of our moderation team for review

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.