C-258, titled An Act to amend the Criminal Code to address the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Jordan, would amend the Criminal Code. Its stated goal is to put the Jordan framework for trial delays into the Code and provide exceptions. The supplied material does not show whether the bill became law or when it would start, so these are proposed changes, not provisions established here as in force.
A superior court judge would have to stay a case if more than 30 months pass from the charge to the actual or expected end of trial, unless the prosecutor proves the delay is reasonable by showing exceptional circumstances.
The same rule would apply in provincial court at 18 months.
Delay caused solely or directly by the defence, or waived by the defence, would not count toward either limit.
The time limits would not apply to a “primary designated offence.” The bill says this exception operates despite the Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.
Accused people and prosecutors: For cases covered by the limits, a judge would have to stay proceedings if the time limit is exceeded, unless the prosecutor establishes the stated exception. Defence-caused or waived delay would be excluded from the calculation.
People charged with a primary designated offence: The bill’s 18- and 30-month limits would not apply. The bill does not set a separate time limit for these cases.
Judges: The proposed rules would impose a duty to stay proceedings in cases that exceed the applicable limit, subject to the prosecutor’s exception.
The supplied text does not change offences or penalties.
The supplied material does not include the current Criminal Code, so the existing law and the precise change from current law could not be verified.
It does not state whether C-258 has become law or give a start date.
“Exceptional circumstances” is not defined in the supplied text.
The text refers to the Criminal Code definition of “primary designated offence,” but that provision was not supplied, so which offences are covered could not be checked.
The bill does not set out a process for deciding whether exceptional circumstances exist, or what test applies to delay in cases outside the time limits.
A possible argument for the bill is that fixed time limits would make the delay rules clearer in the Criminal Code.
Requiring a stay when a limit is exceeded, unless the prosecutor proves exceptional circumstances, could create a strong incentive to bring covered cases to trial on time.
Excluding delay caused by or waived by the defence could prevent that delay from counting against the limit.
One concern is that the bill does not define “exceptional circumstances,” leaving an important part of the rule unclear.
The bill removes these time limits for primary designated offences and says that exception operates despite the Charter’s reasonable-time guarantee. It does not specify another time limit or test for those cases.
Because the supplied material does not include the current Criminal Code, it is unclear how the proposed rules would interact with existing law.