Back to Bills

Criminal Trials Get Deadlines, Serious Cases Exempt

Full Title: An Act to amend the Criminal Code to address the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Jordan

Summary#

This bill would add a new part to the Criminal Code to set hard time limits for bringing criminal cases to trial, based on the Supreme Court’s R. v. Jordan decision. It also creates an exception for a category of serious crimes called “primary designated offences,” and uses the Charter’s notwithstanding clause so that exception applies even if it conflicts with the right to be tried within a reasonable time.

  • Sets a 30‑month ceiling for trials in superior court and an 18‑month ceiling in provincial court (Bill Part XVI.1(1)–(2)).
  • Requires judges to stay proceedings (halt the case) if the ceiling is exceeded, unless the Crown proves “exceptional circumstances” (Bill Part XVI.1(1)–(2)).
  • Excludes delay caused or waived by the defence from the calculation (Bill Part XVI.1(3)).
  • Removes the ceiling rule for “primary designated offences” as defined in Criminal Code s.487.04 (Bill Part XVI.1(4)).
  • Declares, under Charter s.33, that this exception applies despite Charter s.11(b) (right to trial within a reasonable time) (Bill Part XVI.1(5); Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms s.33(1)).

What it means for you#

  • Households

    • If you or a family member is charged with a crime tried in provincial court, the case must normally finish within 18 months from the charge to the end of trial, or the judge must stay it, unless the Crown shows exceptional circumstances (Bill Part XVI.1(2)).
    • If the case is in superior court, the ceiling is 30 months (Bill Part XVI.1(1)).
    • Time delays caused only by the defence, or delays the defence agrees to, do not count toward the ceiling (Bill Part XVI.1(3)).
    • For charges that are “primary designated offences” (a list of serious offences defined in Criminal Code s.487.04), these ceilings do not apply. The judge is not required to stay the case for exceeding 18 or 30 months under this rule (Bill Part XVI.1(4)).
  • Accused persons and defence counsel

    • You can seek a stay if the case exceeds 18 or 30 months, after subtracting defence‑caused or waived delays, unless the Crown proves exceptional circumstances (Bill Part XVI.1(1)–(3)).
    • You cannot rely on the ceiling rule for “primary designated offences” because they are excluded (Bill Part XVI.1(4)).
    • The bill states this exclusion applies despite Charter s.11(b), due to the notwithstanding clause (Bill Part XVI.1(5); Charter s.33(1), s.33(3)).
  • Victims and witnesses

    • For most cases, courts face firm timelines, which may reduce waiting time to testify and uncertainty (Bill Part XVI.1(1)–(2)).
    • For “primary designated offences,” the ceiling rule does not apply, so there is no automatic stay for delay under this provision (Bill Part XVI.1(4)).
  • Prosecutors and police

    • You must manage cases to meet the 18‑ or 30‑month ceilings, discounting defence‑caused or waived delays, or be prepared to prove “exceptional circumstances” to avoid a stay (Bill Part XVI.1(1)–(3)).
    • For “primary designated offences,” the ceiling rule does not apply; prosecutions are not subject to these statutory time limits, and the exclusion is protected by the notwithstanding clause (Bill Part XVI.1(4)–(5)).
  • Courts and court administration

    • Clear statutory ceilings guide scheduling and case management in most criminal cases (Bill Part XVI.1(1)–(2)).
    • You must track defence‑caused or waived delay separately, as it does not count toward the ceiling (Bill Part XVI.1(3)).
    • Different timing rules apply depending on whether the charge is a “primary designated offence” (Bill Part XVI.1(4)).
  • Timing

    • The bill does not state a specific coming‑into‑force date in the provided text. It would take effect once in force under standard rules for federal statutes. Data unavailable.

Expenses#

  • Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

  • Key points

    • No explicit appropriations, fines, or fees are created in the bill text (Bill Part XVI.1).
    • No official fiscal note or costing is provided in the available text. Data unavailable.
    • Possible administrative or caseload impacts on courts and prosecution services are not costed. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

  • Codifies the Jordan framework into clear statutory rules, giving predictable ceilings of 18 months (provincial) and 30 months (superior) and a defined remedy (stay), which can improve efficiency (Bill Part XVI.1(1)–(2)).
  • Prevents abuse of delay by excluding defence‑caused or waived time from the calculation, aligning with Jordan and encouraging diligent conduct (Bill Part XVI.1(3)).
  • Preserves the ability to continue complex or disrupted cases by allowing the Crown to justify delays through “exceptional circumstances” (Bill Part XVI.1(1)–(2)).
  • Protects public safety and confidence by excluding “primary designated offences” from the ceiling rule, so serious cases are not stayed only because of time limits (Bill Part XVI.1(4)).
  • Uses the notwithstanding clause to ensure the exclusion for serious offences is legally effective during its term, reducing litigation over Charter s.11(b) in those cases (Bill Part XVI.1(5); Charter s.33(1), s.33(3)).

Opponents' View#

  • The notwithstanding clause limits access to Charter s.11(b) protections in serious cases, which could allow very long delays without a ceiling‑based remedy; the declaration can last up to 5 years and be renewed (Bill Part XVI.1(5); Charter s.33(3)).
  • Removing the ceilings for “primary designated offences” creates unequal treatment across offences and may reduce pressure on the system to move those serious cases quickly (Bill Part XVI.1(4)).
  • “Exceptional circumstances” is not defined in the bill text, which could lead to uneven application and more litigation over what counts as exceptional (Bill Part XVI.1(1)–(2)). Data unavailable.
  • Risk that classification disputes over what is a “primary designated offence” add complexity and delay, since different timing rules apply (Bill Part XVI.1(4); Criminal Code s.487.04).
  • No fiscal analysis is provided; changes in stays, motions, and scheduling could shift workloads and detention costs without planning or resources. Data unavailable.

Timeline

May 30, 2024 • House

First reading

Jun 14, 2024 • House

Second reading

Criminal Justice