Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content

R. v. Nuosci, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 283


Arturo Nuosci              Appellant




Her Majesty The Queen                                                                   Respondent


Indexed as:  R. v. Nuosci


File No.  23232.


1993:  November 3.


Present:  L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Iacobucci and Major JJ.


on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario


                   Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights  ‑‑ Trial within a reasonable time ‑‑ Delay not unreasonable ‑‑ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 11(b) .


Cases Cited


                   Applied:  R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771.


                   APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1992), 17 W.C.B. (2d) 444, allowing the Crown's appeal from a stay of proceedings ordered by the Ontario Court (General Division).  Appeal dismissed.


                   Irwin Koziebrocki, for the appellant.


                   Ian R. Smith, for the respondent.


                   The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by


                   Sopinka J. ‑‑ This is an appeal as of right from a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario setting aside a stay of charges against the appellant.


                   We agree with the Court of Appeal that applying the factors in R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771, the delay herein was not unreasonable.


                   With respect to the period from the date of the charges to committal for trial, having regard to the fact that most of the elapsed time was due either to the inherent time requirement of the case or waiver, the delay was not unreasonable.  Agreement to suggested dates cannot be characterized as acquiescing in the inevitable in the absence of evidence to that effect.


                   With respect to the period between the date of the committal and the date of trial, part of the time was waived and the balance is not unreasonable in light of the principles and guidelines set out in R. v. Morin, supra.


                   The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.


                   Judgment accordingly.


                   Solicitor for the appellant:  Irwin Koziebrocki, Toronto.


                   Solicitor for the respondent:  Ian R. Smith, Toronto.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.