R. v. Matson Date:, 2010 BCPC 295

Citation: R. v. Matson Date: 20101122 2010 BCPC 0295 File No: 173654-1 Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. RENE DARL MATSON REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE P.D. GULBRANSEN Counsel for the Crown: B. Lane Counsel for the Defendant: D. Muldoon Place of Hearing: Surrey, B.C. Date of Hearing: October 12, 2010 Date of Judgment: November 22, 2010 Introduction [ 1 ] On October 12, 2010 I ordered that charges against the accused be stayed because her right to a trial within a reasonable time as guaranteed by s. 11(

b) of the Charter of Rights had been infringed. I indicated that I would file written reasons to supplement my brief oral reasons. I also wanted to release these reasons concurrently with my decision in R . v. Moskal , another case which concerns unreasonable delay. [ 2 ] I will not repeat my discussion in Moskal of the problems facing the Surrey courthouse or my discussion of the legal principles applicable to the issue of unreasonable delay. The delay in Ms. Matson’s case was 18 months attributable solely to institutional delay. Circumstances [ 3 ] The offence date was December 6, 2008.

The Information was sworn on March 16, 2009. The accused’s first appearance was on March 26, 2009. On her next appearance on April 16, 2009 a trial date was set for May 12, 2010. This was the earliest date that the court had. Defence counsel had much earlier dates on which he was available. [ 4 ] On May 12, 2010 the accused appeared with counsel, prepared to conduct her trial. There was no court time available to hear her case in any of the available courtrooms in the Surrey courthouse. The case was adjourned to February 24, 2011 for trial.

However, the accused’s counsel appeared on May 19, 2010 and insisted that an earlier trial date be fixed. The trial date was then set for October 12, 2010. Prejudice to the Accused [ 5 ] Ms. Matson filed an affidavit which set out the effects on her of the delay in getting her case to trial. She is a childcare worker who has never before been charged with any offence. She said that the charges have caused her “considerable worry and anxiety.” She also said that she suffers from depression and bipolar disorder. She indicated that the adjournment of her trial exacerbated her anxiety and depression.

She had to seek help from her doctor to get medication to help her to sleep.

[ 6 ] The Crown chose not to dispute the assertions contained in the accused’s affidavit. Analysis [ 7 ] The length of the delay from the swearing of the Information and the trial date was 19 months. The first trial date was set within 3 weeks of the accused’s first appearance. The accused did not waive any time periods. [ 8 ] The case was a simple impaired driving/“over .08” charge. It required little intake time. In fact the parties were ready to fix a date within 3 weeks of the accused’s first appearance. It would have taken no more than a day to complete the trial.

There were no actions by the accused or the Crown which contributed to the delay. The accused did all that she could to get the earliest trial date possible. [ 9 ] The sole reason for the delay was that there was a backlog in the trial calendar. The backlog existed because there has been a long-standing shortage of judges, court staff and sheriffs. The length of the delay was almost twice the limit for acceptable institutional delay of 8-10 months, set by the Supreme Court of Canada in R . v. Morin , 1991 CanLII 101 (SCC) , [1991] S.C.J.

No. 35 . [ 10 ] The accused adduced evidence that she had suffered prejudice from the delay, namely acute anxiety arising from the charges “hanging over her head.” There is no reason to reject that evidence. I find therefore that the accused has suffered prejudice as a result of the delay in this case. [ 11 ] I also find that Ms. Matson’s right under s. 11(

b) of the Charter of Rights to be tried within a reasonable time has been infringed. I direct that there be a stay of proceedings on both charges on the Information. ___________________________________ The Honourable Judge P.D. Gulbransen Provincial Court of British Columbia