Law360 Canada ( May 29, 2026, 12:38 PM EDT) -- Appeal by the Crown from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal which affirmed a judgment granting a stay of proceedings. Jacques-Taylor and three co-accused were charged with drug- and firearm‑related offences. On July 6, 2022, Jacques-Taylor and one of his co-accused appeared in court to set a trial date. Counsel for Jacques-Taylor was available for the first available court date of Aug. 8, 2023, however counsel for the co-accused was not available. The parties settled on Oct. 2 to 4, 2023, for the trial. This date was 22 months and two weeks from the date on which charges were laid. Jacques-Taylor filed an application under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The case management judge declined to attribute the delay in August caused by the unavailability of counsel for the co-accused to Jacques-Taylor. The case management judge concluded that the net total delay was 18 months and two weeks, placing it two weeks over the presumptive 18-month Jordan ceiling and granted a stay of proceedings. The Court of Appeal concluded that given that Jacques-Taylor and his co‑accused had not proceeded as a collective, the delay caused solely by the unavailability of the co‑accused’s counsel could not be attributed to Jacques-Taylor and dismissed the appeal. The Crown has asked the court to answer two questions: first, can a delay caused by a co‑accused be considered a discrete exceptional circumstance in relation to the accused and second, to define the precise scope of the “Boulanger/Hanan contextual approach” to apportioning delays among the defence and the Crown....