An Ontario justice of the peace judge has ruled that Canadians’ charter right to a timely trial applies in traffic court, dismissing the case of a man charged with running a red light after prosecutors waited too long to bring the case to trial.
An Oakville, Ont., driver was captured on camera running a red light at an intersection on June 8, 2022, and the driver pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors set the May 23, 2024, as the date for case down for trial.
Justice of the Peace Milena Commisso ruled that the delay of more than 23 months had violated Section 11.b. of the Charter of Rights which states, “Any person charged with an offence has the right to be tried within a reasonable amount of time.”
“This is a red light camera charge before the Court. It is not a complex matter,” she wrote in the July 16 decision.
The Supreme Court of Canada has fixed a deadline of 18 months in provincial court criminal proceedings, excluding delays of a defendants’ own making.
“I find there has been no action on the part of the applicant to cause any portion of the delay leaving the net delay at 22 months and 23 days,” wrote Justice of the Peace Commisso, noting that the defendant had “satisfied the only requirement he had” by filing his Notice of Intention to appear on June 28, 2022. “This clearly falls above the presumptive ceiling.”
The justice of the peace also said no witnesses needed to be vetted for a traffic violation, so the availability of witnesses was not a considering factor when setting the trial date.
“Accordingly, this court finds that the full net delay is seen as systemic and/or institutional delay and must be attributed to the Respondent and ultimately seen as unreasonable,” she wrote.
She cited the Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in the case of Barrett Jordan, a B.C. man who had been charged with drug trafficking. Mr. Jordan, who was arrested in 2008, spent two months in custody and waited another three years before his trial was finally scheduled.
In that case, the Supreme Court wrote that achieving justice in a timely manner was one of the “hallmarks of a free and democratic society,” and that it takes on a “special significance” in the context of criminal law.
“The Canadian public expects their criminal justice system to bring accused persons to trial expeditiously,” wrote the Supreme Court.
The justice of the peace also said that while there had been debate in many courts on whether Section 11.b. applied to regulatory offences, the Supreme Court of Canada had confirmed in the case of R. v. Wigglesworth that highway traffic charges are subject to charter protections.
