Page 1 of 1
Limitation Period On Provincial Offense Trials?
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:40 pm
by freedom94
Friend of mine got a ticket for failure to stay in marked lane last december. I attended a prosecutor date in early may. I sent a request for disclosure long before and it wasnt provided. Prosecutor stated they will send a request for trial within 4-6 weeks. Been almost 6 months and no date. I sent the attorney general a letter months ago.
Re: Limitation Period On Provincial Offense Trials?
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:46 am
by argyll
I'd check with the court house. Sound like it might have been withdrawn.
Re: Limitation Period On Provincial Offense Trials?
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:37 pm
by freedom94
Correct me if im wrong but isnt there a limitation period of how long you can wait for trial, like 1 year or a little less?
Re: Limitation Period On Provincial Offense Trials?
Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 10:55 am
by highwaystar
While in the past courts were using the 10 month time frame, the SCC decision of Jordan has changed court priorities and now POA courts are going with the 18 month threshold (from charge date to trial). As courts are now being burdened with trying to fast-track criminal matters, this naturally results in greater delays for non-criminal matters due to limited court resources such as staff and courtrooms. In other words, the Jordan decision really just made the system favour Criminal matters over all others (who now are facing greater delays!). They tried to fix one side of the equation, only to make all others suffer!
The Supreme Court can't be all that blamed----as they were just sending a message to the government to invest more in the justice system and speed things up for everyone. But, the government, in its brilliant wisdom really hasn't responded. Instead of hiring more judges, prosecutors and court staff, they think enhancing 'efficiency' and cutting procedures such as preliminary inquiries is the best way to go. That strategy is going to implode very quickly----don't be surprised if this issue goes back up to the SCC sooner than later.