Law360 Canada ( November 6, 2025, 10:46 AM EST) -- Appeal by appellant from the application judge’s decision dismissing his application for delay. This appeal called for guidance concerning how mistrials affect an accused’s right to be tried within a reasonable time. The appellant stood trial, approximately 32 months after he was initially charged. Due to the first trial resulting in a mistrial, over 36 months elapsed by the time of his conviction. The charges concerned events that took place between 2014 and 2017. The complainant alleged that over the course of several years when she was a teenager, the appellant, who was four years her senior, repeatedly threatened to post intimate photos of her on social media if she did not have sexual intercourse with him. In fear that her intimate images would be disseminated, she complied. The appellant denied this, claiming that everything happened consensually within the context of a flirtatious and, later, a romantic relationship. The timing of the alleged sexual assault was a live issue at trial. The first trial judge agreed with the defence and declared a mistrial. The parties scheduled the second jury trial to begin and because that date occurred several months after the adjusted R. v. Jordan (Jordan) ceiling, the appellant brought a s. 11(b) application. The application judge dismissed the application. After finding that the first trial occurred within the Jordan ceiling, she determined that the mistrial delay was not unreasonable. The appellant argued that the application judge erred in dismissing the s. 11(b) application and that the Crown’s question about child pornography rendered the retrial unfair. The appellant argued that the application judge erred in treating the mistrial as resetting the Jordan clock....