Jim's Case — Over 80 — Dismissed for Delay

Client:  Jim V., Accused
Complainant:  Toronto Police Service
Charges:  over 80 and speeding

Background:  Jim was a budding real estate estate agent facing a potential second conviction for drinking and driving. A conviction would mean jail time and six years of driving restrictions. The police, for good measure, had also thrown in a speeding charge.

READ THE POLICE REPORT

Goals:  Jim wanted to beat the charges, if possible.

Strategy:  Our strategy emerged as soon as we scheduled Jim's trial — more than 14 months after his arrest. I planned to ask the trial Judge to dismiss Jim's charges for unreasonable delay. This argument would be based on section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That provision guarantees us all a trial within a reasonable time. Since Jim was suffering from anxiety, I arranged for him to see a therapist. I harboured a hope that the therapist might assist with our Charter Application.

Results:  On the morning of the trial, we argued the "delay" application. The primary, contested issue was whether Jim had been prejudiced by the delay. The therapist had prepared a report addressing that very issue. Accepting the therapist's findings, Her Honour dismissed both the over-80 charge and the speeding charge.

READ WHY THE JUDGE DISMISSED THE CHARGES