Set s.696.1 decision timelines
Petitioners ask the Government to establish legislated maximum timelines for s.696.1 reviews (per R v Jordan), provide remedies for breaches, create an independent registry, review post‑2016 cases, and hold a public inquiry into Kelvin Purdy.
Why we would sign this petition
- Sets enforceable deadlines aligning reviews with R v Jordan, reducing presumptively unreasonable delays and restoring public confidence in post‑conviction processes.
- Provides effective remedies for breaches, including court referral, protecting applicants' Charter‑protected liberty interests from indefinite delay.
- Requires registry tracking and a post‑2016 review plus a public inquiry into Kelvin Purdy, improving transparency, accountability and learning from past errors.
Why we wouldn’t sign this petition
- Rigid legislated timelines may be impractical for complex or evidence‑heavy cases and risk rushed or incomplete reviews.
- Mandatory court referrals and remedies could increase litigation and administrative costs, diverting resources from thorough review.
- A broad review and public inquiry may duplicate existing processes, be costly, and politicize individual cases rather than delivering faster remedies.
The summary and both sets of reasons are AI-generated from the petition and given equal weight. Claims are the petitioners’ own; consult the official record for the full text.
Official petition
Petition to the House of Commons in Parliament assembled The Supreme Court of Canada in R v Jordan (2016) affirmed that delay beyond defined ceilings is presumptively unreasonable and undermines public confidence in the administration of justice; Applications under section 696.1 of the Criminal Code constitute a post-conviction review process provided for in the Criminal Code and engage Charter-protected liberty interests; The Criminal Conviction Review Group has operated since July 8, 2016 without legislated maximum decision timelines, public registry tracking, or effective remedies for prolonged delay; and Some section 696.1 applications deemed complete after Jordan have remained undecided for many years, including applications exceeding seven years without final determination. We, the undersigned, citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commonsto direct the Government of Canada to: 1. Establish legislated maximum decision timelines for applications under section 696.1 of the Criminal Code, grounded in the constitutional principles set out in R v. Jordan (2016); 2. Provide an effective remedy where those timelines are exceeded, including referral to the courts or other appropriate relief; 3. Require that all section 696.1 applications be assigned a formal file number upon being deemed complete and be subject to transparent timeline tracking through an independent registry-style mechanism; 4. Conduct a review of all section 696.1 applications decided or pending since 2016 to assess compliance with constitutional delay principles; and 5. Establish a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act into the wrongful conviction of Kelvin Kingsbury Purdy, including the non-disclosure of exculpatory DNA evidence and the handling of his application by the Criminal Conviction Review Group.
Government response
No government response is available yet.