The Supreme Court rules the delay for the retrial of a Quebec father charged with multiple sex offences was reasonable.

NCA candidates writing their criminal law exams should be aware of an update to a case listed on the NCA syllabus called the R. v. J.F. On the 6th of May 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a ruling that relates to R. v. Jordan.

J.F. was charged in 2011 with seven counts of sexual offense against his daughter in Quebec between 1986 and 2001. J.F.'s trial commenced in late 2013 before the Court of Québec after a preliminary inquiry.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its decision in R. v. Jordan in 2016. In that decision, the Supreme Court established time constraints between when a person is charged and when their trial is completed. Following a preliminary inquiry, a trial in a provincial court, such as the Court of Québec, is limited to 30 months.

J.F.'s trial finished in 2017, six years after he was charged, with his acquittal. The Crown filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal of Quebec, which ordered a new trial. J.F. urged the court to "stay" the proceedings before the retrial commenced. He claimed that the delays he experienced during his first trial and before his retrial were excessive. J.F. claimed that his right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) to "be tried within a reasonable time" had been breached as a result of the delays.

The retrial judge agreed with J.F. that his right to due process under section 11(b) of the Charter had been violated. The Crown filed an appeal with the Quebec Court of Appeal. The judges on that court decided that each trial's delay should be assessed separately. They claimed that considering the retrial delay would only be necessary if the initial trial delay was appropriate. However, in J.F.'s instance, the first trial delay was excessive. As a result, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal without taking into account the retrial delay. The Crown then took the case to Canada's Supreme Court for an appeal.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Crown.

Only the delay for the retrial is counted.

Chief Justice Richard Wagner, writing for a majority of Supreme Court judges, said the Jordan judgment required both the Crown and defense counsel to act quickly. This includes the accused swiftly raising the point of delay. As a result, an accused who believes their right to a speedy trial has been infringed must raise the issue before their trial in the case of a single trial. On rare occasions, an accused may raise the issue on appeal, but this is unusual. After an appeal court has ordered a retrial, the accused should not bring up the delay in their initial trial.

The Chief Justice stated that once an appellate court orders a retrial, only the time spent waiting for the retrial matters, using the same time limit established in Jordan. Only in extreme situations would a postponement from the first trial be considered.

J.F. did not raise the question of the delay during or before his first trial, and he did not mention it before the Court of Appeal in this instance. He just brought it up during his retrial. As a result, only the retrial delay can be considered. The delay was 10 months and 5 days, considerably under the 30-month deadline established in Jordan. As such, it was reasonable, and the proceedings should not be stayed.