Mills v R

Mills v R, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863 is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the right to a trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the meaning of a "court of competent jurisdiction" under section 24(1) of the Charter. The Court held that a thirty-one month delay was not unreasonable in the circumstances and that preliminary hearing judges are not within jurisdiction, superior courts can sometimes be within jurisdiction, and criminal trial courts were always within jurisdiction.

Mills v R
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: June 6, 7, 1984 October 9, 1986 Judgment: June 26, 1986
Citations	[1986] 1 S.C.R. 863
Docket No.	17818
Ruling	Appeal dismissed
Court membership
Reasons given
Majority	McIntyre J., joined by Beetz and Chouinard
Concurrence	La Forest J.
Dissent	Dickson C.J., joined by Lamer J.
Dissent	Wilson J.

Background

For a period starting in 1973 James Mills was arrested and charged several times for robbery. In 1979 he was arrested in Nova Scotia with several outstanding charges. He was moved to London, Ontario to deal with some past charges. He did not appear in court until September 1981. There were a number of requests for adjournment. Eventually, the Charter came into force in April 1982. In May Mills made a motion for a stay of proceedings on the basis that it violated his right to be tried in a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The motions judge held that it was not a "court of competent jurisdiction" under section 24(1) and that even if it was the Charter could not apply retroactively to remedy violations that occurred before the enactment of the Charter. Both the Superior Court of Ontario and Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the motion.

Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada

Justice McIntyre, writing for the majority, dismissed the appeal.

See also

• List of Supreme Court of Canada cases

External links

• Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision at LexUM and CanLII
• Case summary at mapleleafweb.com