Jordan framework: Your Charter rights regarding delays in criminal court proceedings

by Paul Henderson 3 days ago 3 min read

An explainer about this element of the criminal justice system from someone who is not a lawyer

A caveat here that should be obvious but I'll say it: I'm not a lawyer and I'm not now nor do I ever give legal advice when I share anecdotes from courtrooms and analysis about what little I do know about the law or criminal proceedings.

I'm keenly interested in the courts, I'm pathologically curious, and most importantly, I am just about the only journalist paying close attention to what goes on in the criminal courts that are responsible for a geographic area larger than Jamaica or Lebanon with a population pushing 400,000.

With that said, a tidbit from the Chilliwack Law Courts way back in March to explain an important principle or guiding framework in criminal proceedings in Canada.

Jordan defines delay

The hallway at the Chilliwack Law Courts was packed one day way back in March 2025, with dozens of citizens ordered to attend for jury selection.

This is the process whereby hundreds of people receive summons in the mail to show up, sit in the hallway and one by one go into BC Supreme Court room 201 to be asked questions, firstly about what your excuse is if you want to get out of it, and if you don't have a good excuse, Crown or defence can exclude you if they don't like you. If both agree, you're in.

These patient folks sitting on chairs lining the hall were among the 12 (plus alternates) to be chosen to sit in judgment for the 17-day trial of Elizabeth Mary Joy Robinson charged with one count each of criminal negligence causing death and failure to perform legal duty to provide necessities of life. The details of the case couldn't be reported at the time, even if I knew them, for obvious jury-tainting reasons.

All I knew from public information is that the accused was born in 1970 so she is, or almost is, 55. The alleged crime took place in Chilliwack with a date of Jan. 1, 2019. Robinson's first appearance was on May 4, 2021. A warrant was issued for a non-appearance on June 25, 2021, and she was ordered to stand trial on July 8, 2022.

I did not follow the case through, but what is of note for a legal observer is that there must be some back story as to why the case took so long to get to trial. That reason has either been deemed to be the fault of the accused, by Crown counsel, or some other circumstances directly related to the case or simply circumstances in the system. If it was one of the latter two (i.e. not Robinson's fault), a lot of people's time was wasted. That's because it had been 46 months since Robinson's first appearance until that March jury selection. That was already 50 per cent too long according to Supreme Court of Canada precedent flowing from the 2016 R v. Jordan decision.

💡

The “Jordan” framework regarding delay in criminal proceedings is not to be mistaken with the unrelated “Jordan’s Principle” that obligates the federal government to ensure that First Nations children receive the public services they need when they need them, without delay due to jurisdictional wrangling.

Jordan is invoked by defence lawyers in cases that drag on too long, because the decision put a hard ceiling on the previously vague Section 11(b) Charter right to a trial in a "reasonable" time. That ceiling is now 18 months in provincial court and 30 months in Supreme court between the time of being charged and the end of a trial.

Delay, however, is calculated based on the regular course of proceedings or can be attributable to Crown counsel delays or the court itself, such as scheduling conflicts or tight court time. But any delay deemed to be the fault of defence – asking for adjournments, firing and rehiring counsel, etc. – are subtracted from the calculations so that people accused of crimes can't intentionally delay their cases and then have charges dropped. In some cases, defence will waive delay in open court so as to admit the time shouldn't count toward Jordan.

If that ceiling is breached through no fault of the accused, a stay of proceedings is granted. In layperson's terms, the charges are dropped.

To read the full Supreme Court of Canada case regarding this element of constitutional law, the case of Her Majesty The Queen versus Barrett Richard Jordan, click here: R v. Jordan.

-30-

Comments? Errors? Get in touch.
Paul J. Henderson
pauljhenderson@gmail.com
facebook.com/PaulJHendersonJournalist
instagram.com/wordsarehard_pjh
x.com/PeeJayAitch
wordsarehard-pjh.bsky.social