Le cadre analytique de l'arrêt Jordan synthétisé par la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario

R. v. Coulter, 2016 ONCA 704 

Lien vers la décision

[34]      Calculate the total delay, which is the period from the charge to the actual or anticipated end of trial (Jordan, at para. 47). 

[35]      Subtract defence delay from the total delay, which results in the “Net Delay” (Jordan, at para. 66). 

[36]      Compare the Net Delay to the presumptive ceiling (Jordan, at para. 66).

[37]      If the Net Delay exceeds the presumptive ceiling, it is presumptively unreasonable.  To rebut the presumption, the Crown must establish the presence of exceptional circumstances (Jordan, para. 47).  If it cannot rebut the presumption, a stay will follow (Jordan, para. 47).  In general, exceptional circumstances fall under two categories: discrete events and particularly complex cases (Jordan, para. 71). 

[38]      Subtract delay caused by discrete events from the Net Delay (leaving the “Remaining Delay”) for the purpose of determining whether the presumptive ceiling has been reached (Jordan, para. 75).

[39]      If the Remaining Delay exceeds the presumptive ceiling, the court must consider whether the case was particularly complex such that the time the case has taken is justified and the delay is reasonable (Jordan, at para. 80).

[40]      If the Remaining Delay falls below the presumptive ceiling, the onus is on the defence to show that the delay is unreasonable (Jordan, para. 48).

[41]      The new framework, including the presumptive ceiling, applies to cases already in the system when Jordan was released (the “Transitional Cases”) (Jordan, para. 96).