In April 2026, a Saskatchewan court upheld the stay of proceedings against Taylor Kennedy. Kennedy had been the first person in Saskatchewan ever charged with causing a death while driving under the influence of THC. A nine-year-old girl, Baeleigh Maurice, was killed crossing the street. The reason the case collapsed was not the evidence. It was time. The Crown had run out of it.
For anyone facing a serious driving charge in British Columbia, this case is not an oddity. It is a reminder that timing is one of the most powerful variables in your defence, and one that most accused people do not realize is working for or against them from the very first day.
What is the Jordan ceiling
The Charter guarantees every person charged with an offence the right to be tried within a reasonable time. In 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada set hard ceilings in R. v. Jordan. For a case in provincial court, that ceiling is 18 months from the date charges are laid to the anticipated end of trial. For a case in superior court, it is 30 months. If the case exceeds those ceilings, and the delay is not caused by the defence, the charges are stayed. Stayed means stopped. The prosecution cannot continue.
Jordan was a dramatic break from decades of prior law, which allowed courts to stretch the analysis into vague balancing exercises. It was designed to force systemic change by making delay expensive for the Crown and the court system.
How the Saskatchewan case collapsed
Taylor Kennedy was charged in September 2021 after a collision in which Baeleigh Maurice, pushing her scooter at a crosswalk, was struck and killed. The file moved through the courts slowly. By the time the defence brought a Jordan application, the net delay exceeded the 18-month ceiling.
The trial court stayed the charges. On appeal, that decision was upheld. Saskatchewan actually has one of the lowest Jordan breach rates in Canada, around 2.7 percent compared to a national average of 9.4 percent. But when the clock does run out, even the most serious cases can disappear in a single ruling.
Why this matters in British Columbia
BC is not insulated from Jordan delay. Court scheduling pressures in the Lower Mainland, disclosure delays from certain detachments, and the layered administrative steps that accompany impaired driving and dangerous driving files all create opportunities for delay to accumulate. Cases that look routine can become Jordan candidates once trial dates slip, disclosure is re-ordered, or the Crown needs to amend an information.
At the same time, the Jordan clock is unforgiving of the defence. Waiving time, agreeing to adjournments, failing to mitigate delay, or raising a Jordan argument too late in the process can all sink an otherwise strong application. This is an area where working with a lawyer who tracks these timelines actively, from day one, is the difference between a stay and a conviction.
What kinds of delay count, and against whom
Delay attributable to the Crown includes things like late disclosure, Crown unreadiness on scheduled trial dates, failure to call scheduled witnesses, and institutional delay in court scheduling. Delay attributable to the defence includes things like adjournments requested by the defence, unavailability of defence counsel, and unnecessary pre-trial applications.
Some delay is neutral, including short adjournments for legitimate reasons, the time needed for reasonable disclosure, and periods where both sides contributed equally to scheduling difficulties. The breakdown matters because a Jordan application lives or dies on where the time is allocated.
The mistake of thinking delay is always good for the accused
There is a common assumption that stretching a case out benefits the defence. It can, but only when the delay is being allocated to the Crown and carefully documented. When the defence creates or contributes to delay, that time almost always works against the accused.
Waivers are the most common trap. A defence lawyer new to an area might agree to a trial date four months out because it seemed convenient at the time. That waiver can later be argued to have surrendered Jordan entitlements. By the time the case has gone past the ceiling, reversing those waivers is very difficult.
What a lawyer specifically does on a Jordan strategy
Managing Jordan across a case is not something that happens at the last minute. Here is what a defence lawyer actually does from the start.
A lawyer calendars the ceiling on day one. Counting forward from the date of charge, the lawyer knows exactly when the 18 or 30 month ceiling falls. Every scheduling decision from that point is made with the ceiling in mind.
A lawyer refuses unnecessary waivers. Waivers of delay are often requested in routine court appearances and signed without thought. A lawyer experienced in driving files understands which waivers are prudent and which are strategic surrenders.
A lawyer builds a paper trail. Every adjournment gets documented. Every request for disclosure gets put in writing. Every missed deadline by the Crown gets flagged. When it is time to bring a Jordan application, the lawyer has a complete record showing how the delay accumulated and why it should be allocated to the Crown.
A lawyer times the application correctly. Bringing a Jordan application too early is wasteful and can be denied as premature. Bringing one too late can be fatal. The right moment depends on the facts of the case and the state of the record.
Frequently asked questions
My case has already taken more than 18 months. Do I automatically get a stay?
No. The Jordan analysis subtracts defence delay and certain other periods before comparing against the ceiling. You need a lawyer to conduct that analysis. A case that looks over the line on the calendar may not be once the subtractions are done, and vice versa.
The Crown keeps asking for adjournments. Should I always say no?
Not necessarily. Sometimes a Crown adjournment actually helps your case by consuming Crown time on the Jordan clock. Sometimes opposing the adjournment creates a better record. The right response depends on where you are in the case, how the judge is likely to characterize the delay, and what else is in play.
My lawyer says my case will take a year. Is that too long?
A year from charge to trial in provincial court is well within the Jordan ceiling. What matters is not just the total time but whether it accumulates properly. A lawyer should be able to explain how the schedule fits within the ceiling and what happens if any of the dates slip.
What if I actually want my trial sooner, not later?
Tell your lawyer. There are advantages to moving quickly, including fresher witness memories, less time under bail conditions, and a faster resolution. A lawyer who understands your priorities can push for earlier dates and preserve your Jordan position at the same time.
Does Jordan apply to the administrative side of my case, like the IRP or the 90-day ADP?
Jordan applies to criminal charges, not to administrative penalties. The administrative track has its own shorter timelines and its own review process. A lawyer will handle both tracks on parallel paths.
If the charges against me are stayed under Jordan**, can they be brought back?**
A stay under Jordan is effectively final. Outside of extraordinary circumstances, the Crown does not reopen stayed charges. Practically, a Jordan stay means the case is over.
