11b question? | GTAMotorcycle.com

11b question?

ajaxguy

Well-known member
Ok so I have read the sticky about this, but I cant seem to find this. My offence date was May 31st of this year, I requested a first appearance but their offer was garbage. So then they finally mailed me out my court date today. My trial date is June 15th of next year. Does that first appearance count as me delaying or something like that, or is the timeframe based on offence date and actual trial date? If so, I am at just over a year which I would think falls in my favour for 11b, but want to make sure that first appearance does not "reset" the timeframe so to speak.

Any info appreciated! Thanks!
 
I thought 11b's in Toronto required substantially more than a year now (like 18 months)? When did you actually request a court date? What jurisdiction?

Related questions I had to be answered by smart/informed people on the forum:
Is the time required to be eligible for 11b a moving target? If it his, who decides what's correct? Is it a political decision or do the JP's talk to each other? I didn't think JP's could set (or were bound by) case law.
 
It all depends on your jurisdiction, and what specific options were on the back of your ticket. There are two ways to schedule a first attendance meeting.

Option #1 - Selection 2 on the back of your ticket requests for the meeting
Option #2 - Selection 3 on your ticket is for trial and you separately fill out a form request a meeting with the prosecutor

Most of the GTA has streamlined to option #1, and this was purposefully to reduce 11b charter challenges.

The 11b clock starts from the date you file your intentions to go to trial, till your trial date. So with option #1, if you fail to come to a resolution with the prosecutor... then the prosecutor schedules a trial date. So your intention to go to trial happens when your resolution fails, and that's when your 11b clock starts ticking.

There have been a lot of decisions since the Justice Libman's 11b decision R. ex rel City of Toronto v. Andrade, 2011 ONCJ 470. It's in your best interest to go through all of them.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/#search/jId=on&sort=decisionDate&all=andrade 11b

R. v. Jair, 2013 ONCJ 142 (CanLII)

22. I have assigned 90 days, or three months, as neutral Intake period to the period from December 6, 2011 to March 6, 2012. I assign 60 days or two months to Limits on Institutional Resources in relation to the period from March 6, 2012 to May 6, 2012.

38. The total delay attributable to institutional delay and the actions of the Crown amounts to 11.5 months.

41. Balancing all of the factors in this case, I have reached the conclusion that Ms. Jair’s rights under s. 11(b) of the Charter were infringed and that her rights and society’s rights to a prompt trial outweigh the societal interests in bringing accused persons to trial. Accordingly, I stay the proceedings under s.24(1).​

You'll have to read the entire decision as a whole, but the JP ended up assigning the early resolution time as a "neutral" delay.

Corporation (City of Mississauga) v. Lam, 2012 ONCJ 734 (CanLII)

[61] On the question of how to treat the five-month delay from April 29, 2011, to September 29, 2011, that is associated with the scheduling and holding the first attendance meeting with the prosecutor, that period can be regarded as an implict waiver by the defendant since the defendant had opted on April 29, 2011, to have a voluntary or optional first attendance meeting with the prosecutor; however, since the purpose or function of the first attendance meeting is for the resolution of the charge then it is more suitable and practicable for the 11(b) paradigm to find this delay as part of a “neutral intake period” that is to be deducted from the overall length of delay.​

Is the time required to be eligible for 11b a moving target? If it his, who decides what's correct? Is it a political decision or do the JP's talk to each other? I didn't think JP's could set (or were bound by) case law.

Time calculations are done during a pre-trial motion, and it's up to the residing JP to rule who's responsible for each individual delay. Just because you get the golden number of +11 months (R. v. Andrade), doesn't necessarily mean you'll get a constitutional stay. You have to show the courts how the delay has caused you harm.

R. v. Szewczyk, 2012 ONCJ 680 (CanLII)

[185] After assessing and balancing these factors, I have determined that of the 20-months and 18-days of overall trial delay in this proceeding from February 11th, 2011 to October 29th, 2012, a period of 11 months and 22 days is attributable to institutional or systemic delay for which the prosecution is responsible.

[186] Furthermore, I have determined that the defendant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that he suffered either actual or inferred prejudice as a result of the degree of institutional or systemic trial delay relative to the subject speeding charge.

[187] Accordingly, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities, that the defendant’s right to be tried of the subject offence within a reasonable time under subsection 11(b) of the Charter, has not been infringed. The defendant is not, therefore, entitled to a remedy under subsection 24(1) of the Charter.

[188] The defendant’s application under subsections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter is therefore denied.​
 
Last edited:
Wow some great info Fly, thanks! Mine was option 1 and it was in Durham, which is the Whitby court.
 
Wow some great info Fly, thanks! Mine was option 1 and it was in Durham, which is the Whitby court.

I would think Durham should have a smaller window for "institutional delay" as there should be fewer court proceedings.

When I did 11b in the past, the court date was delayed twice for inadequate disclosure. On my third appearance with my 11b filed the crown had my filing and withdrew the charges.
 
I appreciated the information posted by iFly55 as well. Thank you! :)

I don't think I understand the intake period too well though. I am referring to that 2011 Andrade case that you posted. If you do the math, it goes something like this:

(1) Andrade: -2 months (inherent time requirement, i.e. intake period) -1 month (accused delay) +9 months (institutional delay) = 6 months total delay.

(2) Hariraj: -1 month (intake period) -4 days (accused delay, lol) +10 months (institutional delay) = 8 months & 26 days total delay.

So, if the Court discounted the intake period, then both cases were well within the parameters set out in R and Morin (no more than 8-10 months of delay). So, what gives? It sounds that the Court nevertheless counted everything, the intake period, and institutional delay.

Also, I could not find any case where it said that the clock starts ticking from the time the resolution fails and the prosecutor sets the matter for trial. My understanding is that the clock starts ticking from the date you were served with the ticket, but I could be wrong.
 
Also, I could not find any case where it said that the clock starts ticking from the time the resolution fails and the prosecutor sets the matter for trial. My understanding is that the clock starts ticking from the date you were served with the ticket, but I could be wrong.


The clock starts when you request a trial. If you get a ticket then dont request a trial for X amount of time it doesnt give you access to the 11b. You also cannot ask for an extension and count that time towards 11b.
 
Clock begins once the trial date is set.

It would be seen as unjust if the court penalized the system, (crown), for delaying your trial when they have no idea if your pleading guilty, resolving during first appearance or going to trial. Therefore, clock can't start the day you receive the ticket.
 

Back
Top Bottom