On September 11, 2026, the Supreme Court released its decision in R. v. R.B.-C., 2026 SCC 30. The CCLA was an intervenor in the case, which concerned how the right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter applies to sentencing proceedings. The case addressed two central questions. First, if a person is convicted of an offence, how long may sentencing proceedings reasonably take? Second, what remedy should be granted if those proceedings are unreasonably delayed? The CCLA argued that the sentencing process should not continue in this situation. This is called a stay of the sentencing proceedings. A finding of guilt for the offence would remain.
The Court’s ruling was twofold. The Court found that there is no presumptive ceiling on the amount of time that sentencing proceedings can take. The test is a case-specific evaluation of whether the time taken to impose the sentence was markedly longer than it reasonably should have been in all the circumstances. The Court also held that there is no minimum remedy for a delay in sentencing proceedings. Rather, a court must craft the remedy it considers appropriate and just in the circumstances. That will ordinarily be a sentence reduction, although a stay may be ordered in exceptional circumstances.
The Court also made an important observation about why a stay of proceedings is the minimum remedy for a violation of s. 11(b) before sentencing, during the trial stage, holding at paragraph 63:
“In R. v. Rahey, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588, this Court held that a stay of proceedings is the appropriate remedy for unreasonable delay occurring before conviction, because any lesser remedy would permit the trial to continue and thereby compound the breach of s. 11(b). That conclusion, however, was directed to pre-conviction delay, where the accused remains presumptively innocent and the proceedings leading to a determination of guilt are themselves tainted by unconstitutional delay.”
The Court’s decision can be read here, and the CCLA’s factum can be read here.
The CCLA is grateful to Chris Rudnicki and Theresa Donkor of Rudnicki & Company for their excellent pro bono representation in this case. We also thank Catherine Ouellet of Gowling WLG for their pro bono agent services.
