Trial Deadlines Set, Serious Crimes Exempted

Summary#

• This bill would put the Supreme Court’s “Jordan” timelines into the Criminal Code. Those timelines set how long a criminal case can take before it must be stopped for delay.

• It also creates a major exception: the timelines would not apply to a long list of serious crimes. The bill uses the “notwithstanding clause” (a Charter tool that lets a law override certain rights for up to five years) to make that exception stand.

• Key changes:

  • Sets a clear time limit from the charge to the end of trial: 18 months in provincial court and 30 months in superior court.
  • If the limit is passed, a judge must stop the case, unless the prosecutor shows “exceptional circumstances” (for example, a very complex case or a serious, unforeseeable event).
  • Delays caused by the defence, or delays the defence agrees to, do not count toward the limit.
  • The time limits do not apply to “primary designated offences” (a legal list of serious crimes, such as murder, sexual assault, armed robbery, kidnapping, and similar offences).
  • Uses the notwithstanding clause so the serious-crime exception applies even if it limits the Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

What it means for you#

• Accused people

  • If charged with most offences: your case must finish within about 18 months (provincial court) or 30 months (superior court). If it goes longer without exceptional reasons, the judge must stop the case.
  • If charged with a serious “primary designated” offence: there is no fixed 18- or 30‑month limit. Your case can continue even after long delays, unless another legal rule applies.
  • Delays you cause, ask for, or agree to will not help you reach the time limit.

• Victims and families

  • For most crimes, cases still face firm timelines, which can reduce waiting and uncertainty.
  • For serious violent and sexual crimes, cases would be less likely to be thrown out for delay. But these cases may take longer because there is no fixed ceiling.

• General public

  • Clear timelines may push faster resolution for many cases, which can improve trust in the system.
  • Serious cases are more likely to be heard on the merits rather than ended because of delay.

• Lawyers and prosecutors

  • Clear, statutory deadlines align with current Jordan rules for most files.
  • For serious offences, no Jordan ceiling applies; you will rely on other tools to manage delay and keep cases moving.
  • You must document defence-caused delays and be ready to explain “exceptional circumstances.”

• Courts, police, and corrections

  • Courts will continue to track delay under clear timelines for most cases.
  • Serious-crime files may run longer, affecting scheduling, witness management, and custody (remand) populations.
  • Police and corrections may see longer pre‑trial holds for serious charges if cases take more time.

Expenses#

• No publicly available information.

Proponents' View#

• Sets clear, simple rules that match what the Supreme Court already uses, reducing confusion and uneven outcomes.
• Protects the public by ensuring serious violent and sexual crimes are not thrown out just because of delay.
• Keeps a safety valve: judges can allow extra time for rare, “exceptional” events or very complex cases.
• Excluding defence‑caused delays prevents gaming the system.
• Using the notwithstanding clause is justified here to balance accused rights with community safety in the most serious cases.

Opponents' View#

• Removes key Charter protection for timely trials in serious cases, which could allow very long delays that are unfair to accused people, including those in jail awaiting trial.
• Using the notwithstanding clause is a blunt tool; it lowers pressure on governments to fix root causes of delay (like judge vacancies, court space, and legal aid).
• The “primary designated offences” list is broad, so many offences would have no firm time limit, not just the most extreme cases.
• Longer timelines in serious files may strain victims and witnesses, risking fading memories and weaker evidence.
• May invite legal and political challenges, and create uneven rights between people charged with serious and less serious offences.