Supreme Court Of Canada Clarifies When Criminal Trial Delays Beyond Jordan Ceilings May Be Permitted

OTTAWA, ON: Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees an accused person the right to a trial within a reasonable time. In 2016, the SCC in R. v. Jordan established presumptive ceilings of 18 months (for cases tried in provincial courts) and 30 months (for cases tried in superior courts) for cases to be tried. These presumptive ceilings are sometimes referred to as “the Jordan framework” or “Jordan ceilings”. 

Delays beyond the 18-month and 30-month Jordan ceilings may be acceptable where a case is complex or where there are exceptional circumstances.

In June 2026, the SCC released its decisions in R. v. Vrbanic and R. v. Jacques-Taylor. These cases reiterate that absent case complexity or exceptional circumstances, the ceiling remains the ceiling. What follows is a brief analysis from the team at Friedman Mansour LLP.

R. v. Vrbanic involved 18 accused persons, a very involved pre-trial process, and the possibility of Garofoli applications to challenge warrant and wiretap authorizations. The complexity of the case led it to exceed the 18-month provincial court Jordan ceiling, and the trial judge stayed the proceedings.

In its ruling, the SCC set aside the stay and sent the case back to trial, clarifying the case complexity exception to the presumptive Jordan ceilings. Should the Crown establish that (1) the case was sufficiently complex and (2) the Crown took reasonable steps to reduce delays, then the trial judge must consider whether the complexity of the case justified the time it took to bring the case to trial. In such a case, the delay may be justified, even if they bring the trial beyond the Jordan ceiling.

R. v. Jacques-Taylor involved jointly trying two co-accused individuals. One individual’s lawyer was available for trial dates within the 18-month Jordan ceiling; the other individual’s lawyer was not. This pushed the trial past the ceiling, and the provincial court stayed the charges.

The SCC set aside the stay holding that because joint trials can avoid duplicate proceedings and free up resources, some delays caused by joint trials may be considered exceptional circumstances under the Jordan framework. The Court also clarified that the notion of “exceptional circumstances” did not mean “rare”. 

“R. v. Jordan defined presumptive ceilings for reasonable trial delays. Ten years on, it is unsurprising to see the Supreme Court of Canada clarify and refine the exceptions to the framework given extensive litigation in this area of the law,” said Solomon Friedman, a criminal lawyer and partner at Friedman Mansour LLP. “We continue to advocate for our clients to be tried within a reasonable time. Our team continues to monitor Supreme Court of Canada and Ontario Court of Appeal cases for other changes and exceptions to the Jordan framework.”

With over 25 years of combined criminal defence experience between them, the team at Friedman Mansour LLP offers legal services across a variety of practice areas, including impaired driving, violent crimes, and firearm charges.