Can a Criminal Case Be Dismissed for Court Delay in 2026?

Can Criminal Charges Be Dismissed Because of Court Delays in Calgary?

Yes. A criminal case in Calgary can still be stopped because of unreasonable court delays. However, Canada’s 2026 Criminal Code amendments have changed how courts assess certain delay applications and whether ending the prosecution is the appropriate remedy.

Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives everyone charged with a crime the right to be tried within a reasonable period of time.

In R. v. Jordan, the Supreme Court of Canada set out time periods for most criminal trials. Once the relevant period is exceeded, the delay is presumed to be unreasonable unless the Crown is able to show exceptional circumstances.

The accused may seek a stay of proceedings if his right to a speedy trial is infringed.

A stay puts an end to the criminal proceedings without a conclusion on guilt or innocence of the accused person. This remedy is not the same as an acquittal after trial.

Judicial stay used to be the remedy in place for a proven infringement of the right to a speedy trial under Jordan.

The amendments made in 2026 will make it necessary for the courts to examine the possibility of applying another remedy in situations where this new legislation applies.

It means that once the regular deadline for the trial is exceeded, the criminal proceedings are not necessarily going to be stayed.

What Changed Under Canada’s New 2026 Court Delay Laws?

Bill C-16, the Protecting Victims Act, received Royal Assent on June 18, 2026. The relevant amendments came into force on July 18, 2026.

The legislation introduced Part XV.1 of the Criminal Code, establishing additional rules for assessing unreasonable delays and deciding what remedy should follow.

An important limitation is that these new provisions apply only to offences committed on or after July 18, 2026.

If the alleged offence occurred before that date, the new Part XV.1 does not apply merely because the case remains before a Calgary court in 2026 or later.

Courts Must Consider Alternatives to Staying Criminal Charges

Section 492.31 of the Criminal Code states that courts must not order a stay for unreasonable delay unless satisfied that no other remedy would be appropriate and just in the circumstances.

When making that determination, judges must consider:

• The stage of the criminal proceedings.
• The impact a stay would likely have on the victim.
• The prejudice caused or likely to be caused to the accused.
• Public confidence in the administration of justice.
• Society’s interest in having criminal allegations decided on their merits.

For instance, an accused of assault charges in Calgary might petition to stay the prosecution due to unreasonable delay.

If the court determines that there is unreasonable delay, the new provision will direct the court to consider if another remedy would be an appropriate remedy for the violation.

This is because the law does not specify an alternative remedy for each situation. This will depend on the circumstances and jurisdiction of the court.

The constitutional right of the accused to a trial within a reasonable time will still be protected. The new restrictions under the statute should be consistent with the Charter.

Complex Criminal Cases May Justify Additional Time

These sections further provide that in determining the complexity of a particular case, the court should take into account certain elements.

According to section 492.26, the court should look at the elements that contribute to the complexity of the case, which include the number of applications or motions, separate hearing dates, adjournments and the time to make decisions on procedural matters.

This may come into play in Calgary where there is a case with more than one accused person, voluminous electronic evidence or multiple pre-trial applications.

Just because the Crown says that a case is serious or there have been many adjournments, it does not mean that the case is complex.

Victims Must Be Informed About Delay Applications

The 2026 changes also cover the notification of the victim.

According to section 492.25, the prosecution is required to make reasonable efforts to notify the victim about filing for unreasonable delay and about the decision made by the court regarding this matter.

How Long Can a Criminal Case Take in Calgary Under the Jordan Rules?

The 2026 legislation did not replace the established 18-month and 30-month Jordan ceilings.

The applicable timeline generally depends on where the case is being tried and whether a preliminary inquiry took place.

How Is Criminal Court Delay Calculated?

It is not true that each month between the charge date and the trial date falls within the Jordan ceiling applicable to that case.

The court has to identify which months are for the defence and which are justified by exceptional circumstances.

Here is a hypothetical Calgary case:

Someone is charged with assault, and the estimated time to finish their trial is 21 months since the day they were charged.

In the course of the trial, the defence made a request for an adjournment resulting in two months of delay.

If these two months are correctly attributed to the defence, then the remaining delay is 19 months.

This exceeds the ceiling of 18 months for an ordinary trial at Alberta Court of Justice.

Thus, the accused might have reason to consider the delay presumptively unreasonable.

For an offence committed on or after July 18, 2026, one should take into account new statutory provisions regarding unreasonable delay.

Which Delays May Be Excluded?

Delay caused due to the defence or a valid waiver of delay usually does not count towards the Jordan limit.

Such delay may include the request made by the accused for adjournments, lack of availability of the defence counsel, among others.

However, making requests for disclosure or any other form of challenge to the admissibility of evidence or bringing an application under the Charter does not necessarily imply that the accused is causing delay.

This is because the reasons for the adjournments should be analysed by the courts.

Exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the Crown may also justify certain delays.

Regular congestion in the court or shortage of resources in the court alone does not amount to an exceptional circumstance.

Can Charges Be Stayed Before 18 or 30 Months?

Yes, although these applications are uncommon.

Where the accused is asking for relief below the presumptive ceiling, he or she would need to show that there were some genuine efforts made to push the process along and that the process was unnecessarily taking more time than it should have.

This would be considered a mere inconvenience.

It would take into account the circumstances of the prosecution and the complexity of the matter.

How Do the 2026 Supreme Court Decisions Affect Criminal Cases in Calgary?

Two important Supreme Court of Canada decisions, with written reasons released on May 29, 2026, clarified how exceptional circumstances can affect the Jordan analysis.

Although these cases originated outside Alberta, Supreme Court decisions establish principles that Calgary courts must follow.

R. v. Vrbanic — Complex Cases and Scheduling Errors

In R. v. Vrbanic, 2026 SCC 19, the Supreme Court considered a large drug prosecution involving multiple accused persons, extensive evidence and complicated pretrial proceedings.

Some of the accused were granted dates for their trials beyond the normal limit of 18 months due to a scheduling error involving their expected participation in the application process.

The court pointed out that the complexity exception test consists of determining whether the case in question was complex, whether the Crown took reasonable steps to minimize delay, and whether complexity warranted the extra time.

This judgment shows that a Crown scheduling error is not an absolute bar to making the complexity exception argument.

Nonetheless, the Crown will still have to show that there are good reasons for the delay.

R. v. Jacques-Taylor — Delays in Joint Criminal Trials

In R. v. Jacques-Taylor, 2026 SCC 20, the Supreme Court considered delays arising from scheduling conflicts between defence lawyers in a joint criminal trial.

The Court ruled that some scheduling conflicts that exist between co-accused individuals may fall under exceptional circumstances.

Some factors that can be considered include whether the joint trial is in the interest of justice, whether the delay was caused by the joint trial, whether the delay was reasonably unavoidable, and whether the Crown could reasonably have minimized it.

This decision may be important in Calgary where there are cases that involve multiple accused persons who are being tried jointly.

However, this decision does not imply that every scheduling conflict excuses the trial delay.

How Can You Apply to Have Criminal Charges Stayed for Unreasonable Delay in Calgary?

Review the History of the Criminal Case

The first step is identifying when the charges were laid and when the evidence and arguments at trial are expected to finish.

Relevant court records may include:

• The original charging documents.
• Court appearance and adjournment dates.
• Crown disclosure records.
• Trial scheduling correspondence.
• Records of defence applications and motions.
• Reasons for cancelled or rescheduled hearings.

The lawyer for the accused can compile a chronology of events for every interval.

This would make it easy to differentiate between delay due to institutional reasons and that which is caused by the defence.

The earlier stages of the prosecution may also be reviewed alongside what happens after a criminal charge is laid in Calgary.

Determine Which Legal Framework Applies

The significance of the time of the alleged offence is due to the transition period until 2026.

In case the offence was committed before July 18, 2026, then the new Part XV.1 does not apply.

In case the offence was committed after this date, then it is necessary to take into account both the Criminal Code and the Charter rights of the accused, and the Jordan jurisprudence.

It is important for the defence to determine whether the case can be regarded as one that is beyond the presumptive ceiling or an unreasonable delay under the ceiling is needed.

File the Charter Application

The criminal defence lawyer is in a position to prepare the application and supporting documents requesting the relief due to the delay that may be considered unreasonable.

A delay application may form part of the broader process of building a Charter challenge based on the circumstances of the case.

The Crown then gets a chance to react to the allegations raised by the defence lawyer.

The judge considers the evidence and arguments put forward by the two sides to establish if there was a violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time.

Where the 2026 amendments are applicable, the issue of a possible alternative to a stay will need to be determined.

The raising of the issue of delay will not automatically result in the discharge of the case.

An Experienced Criminal Defence Lawyer can review the chronology of the case, identify which periods of delay may count toward the Jordan ceiling, and determine what legal framework applies to the alleged offence.