That's not conclusive, it's been debated.bend wrote:Nope. It's considered a neutral intake period.MYOHTA wrote:Does early resolution count toward the insititual delay for 11b?
R. v. Jair, 2013 ONCJ 142
19. Ms. Penkow argued that the 5 month delay for the Early Resolution Meeting rests at Ms. JairÃ¢Â€Â™s feet. I do not agree with that argument. In Andrade, supra, at paragraph 58, Justice Libman noted that:
While the City may consider that if a defendant finds the date or time of day given for trial to be inconvenient, an adjournment request can be arranged, this is not the approach adopted for police witnesses, and I do not therefore consider this to be an even-handed way of scheduling trials, particularly for the growing number of unrepresented defendants who may lack the means or understanding of how to change their assigned trial date, and are given no instructions in the notice of trial as to how to do so. Stated shortly, a delay caused by an unfair practice or procedure cannot be reasonable within the meaning of s. 11(b) of the Charter.
20. Ms. Penkow cited the case of R. v. Syed Khan (unreported- Jan.27, 2011- Halton Prov. Offences Office- File No. 95128045) which is noted at paragraphs 70 to 74 of the Szewczyk decision. In Khan, supra, referred to in Szewcyk, at paragraph 72, Justice Zisman concluded that if a self-represented defendant was unhappy with how long an early resolution meeting was taking, she could always cancel the resolution meeting and proceed straight to trial. By accepting an early resolution meeting, there was an implicit waiver by a self-represented defendant.
21. Where the Khan and Andrade decisions are in conflict, I prefer Justice LibmanÃ¢Â€Â™s analysis. With respect to the Intake Period, Justice Libman was working on an evidentiary basis and heard evidence from a court manager on how trial matters are scheduled. Second, there was a comparative jurisdictional analysis of Intake periods throughout Ontario. Finally, Justice Libman referred to the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission and the specific concerns in which dates are set involving self-represented persons. See Andrade supra at paragraphs 58 to 61.