Murray Wood: Who's hot... and who's not
Every Friday, Murray Wood takes a look back at the week's news and decides who's hot... and who's not. This week's list ...
While the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal found that some errors were made, it also found the delay was still too long in the case against Taylor Kennedy, and therefore it was properly stayed, dismissing an appeal.
The case against Kennedy was stayed in December of 2023 after the provincial court judge found it had taken too long and therefore violated Kennedy’s right to be tried within a reasonable time. She was charged with driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of cannabis causing the death of a child, nine-year-old Baeleigh Maurice.
Read more:
- Crown appeals stay of proceedings in Taylor Ashley Kennedy case
- Appeal hearing set for Taylor Kennedy impaired driving case
- In appeal arguments, Crown says judge erred in Taylor Kennedy impaired driving case
The Crown appealed the stay, and on Friday, the Court of Appeal delivered its decision.
It took 899 days – just under 30 months – for Kennedy’s trial to reach its conclusion. The ceiling imposed by the Supreme Court for provincial court cases is 18 months
The judge discounted 158 days from the total time because those delays were caused by the defence and the time the judge took to render a significant interim decision.
“Even with these adjustments, the total time to trial remained well in excess of what would be reasonable under the Jordan framework,” read the appeal decision, written by Justice Robert Leurer.
Kennedy’s defence lawyer said the trial took so long because of the Crown’s “lackadaisical” approach.
In its appeal, the Crown argued another 225 days should be discounted because of the COVID-19 pandemic, exceptional circumstances around a defence Charter application and other defence delays. That would have brought the length of time down below the imposed ceiling.
The appeals court ended up agreeing that 120 days for the pandemic should have been discounted from the time, as well as another 14 days for a delay caused by the defence. It disagreed that more days should be added to account for a Charter application by the defence, which the Crown argued caused “cascading” delays.
However, even with those changes included in the calculation, the court found that the total delay would still “significantly” exceed the maximum allowed under law.
