R v Cody

Cody confirmed and refined the Jordan framework. The presumptive ceilings (18/30 months) are robust; transitional cases warrant slightly more flexibility but should not become a back door to evade the ceilings. Defence must take proactive steps where below-ceiling delay is at issue.

Cody, charged with drug offences in Newfoundland, faced over 60 months of delay. The Crown invoked complexity and transitional-case exceptions.

How robust are the Jordan ceilings? When does the transitional exception apply?

Stay granted. Framework reaffirmed.

The Jordan ceilings are presumptive and robust. The transitional exception (for delay accumulated under the prior Morin regime) must be applied without undermining Jordan's purpose. Defence must take meaningful proactive steps to advance the case if it later relies on below-ceiling unreasonableness.

The unanimous Court rebuffed Crown arguments that Jordan was too rigid. Court culture, Crown resourcing, and case-management practices must adapt to the framework — not the framework to them.

Settled the post-Jordan refinement litigation. KGK (2020) further clarified verdict-deliberation time. Friesen (2020) addresses sentencing of child sexual offences.

R v Cody, 2017 SCC 31, [2017] 1 SCR 659.

McLachlin CJ, Abella J, Moldaver J, Karakatsanis J, Wagner J, Gascon J, Côté J, Brown J, Rowe J