Arrested on an Old Bench Warrant? Why Years of Delay Don't Always Count Against You
If you missed a court date years ago and have just been arrested on an old warrant, you might assume the courts will treat all that lost time as your fault — and that any complaint about delay is off the table. A recent result our firm obtained shows that is not always true. After we filed an application under section 11(b) of the Charter, the Crown conceded that our client's right to be tried within a reasonable time had been violated and stayed the proceedings. A stay ends the prosecution: there is no trial and no conviction.
What Happened
Our client was charged with serious offences and was scheduled for a preliminary inquiry in 2017. He did not attend, and the court issued a bench warrant for his arrest. There the case sat for roughly eight years. It resumed only in 2025, when border agents discovered the warrant by happenstance as he returned from a vacation.
Here is the important part: our client had not fled. Throughout those years he was living at home with his surety — the person who had vouched for him on bail — a ten-minute drive from the courthouse. The police had his address. At one point the complainant even called police to ask what was happening with the case. Nothing was done to execute the warrant.
We gathered that evidence into affidavits and filed an application asking the court to stay the charges for unreasonable delay. After receiving our materials, the Crown brought the matter forward and stayed the proceedings.
Your Right to a Trial Within a Reasonable Time
Section 11(b) of the Charter guarantees anyone charged with an offence the right to be tried within a reasonable time. In R v Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, the Supreme Court of Canada set presumptive ceilings on how long a case may take: 18 months in provincial court, and 30 months where there is a preliminary inquiry or the trial is in superior court. Delay beyond the ceiling is presumed unreasonable, and the usual remedy is a stay of proceedings.
But not all time counts. Delay caused by the defence is subtracted before comparing the total to the ceiling. The rationale is fairness: an accused person should not benefit from delay they themselves created.
When Is Missing Court Your Fault?
Usually, missing court is treated as exactly that kind of defence-caused delay. In R v William, 2025 ONSC 2462 — the decision we relied on — Justice Presser put the general rule plainly: an accused who chooses to absent themself from their case is solely responsible for the delay their absence creates (at para 58).
But the same decision confirms an exception. Where the police and Crown fail to exercise reasonable diligence in executing a warrant — despite knowing the accused's whereabouts — the resulting delay may not be counted against the accused (at paras 60–61, drawing on cases including R v MacIntosh and R v JK). The state, too, has a job to do: it is the Crown's responsibility to bring an accused to trial.
Critically, the burden is on the accused to show the police could have found them. In William itself, the application failed in part because the applicant filed no evidence of where he had been. The lesson is that this argument is won or lost on the evidentiary record.
Why the Exception Applied Here
Our client's situation was the mirror image of William. He was not hiding; he was home, at an address known to the authorities, living with the very surety who had signed his bail. Travel in and out of the country under his own name eventually triggered the arrest — which itself showed how easily he could have been found. Once that record was put before the Crown in sworn affidavits, the conclusion followed: the years of delay could not fairly be laid at our client's feet, and the total delay far exceeded what the Charter permits.
Why This Matters
Bench warrants can sit unexecuted for years while a person's life goes on in plain view. This result confirms that the passage of time in those circumstances is not automatically the accused's burden to carry. Courts will ask what the state did — or failed to do — to move the case forward. And it shows that even a decision that appears unhelpful on its surface, like William, can contain the principle that decides a case the other way on different facts.
What This Means If You Are Facing Charges
If you have been arrested on an old warrant, do not assume the delay dooms you or that a delay application is hopeless. The outcome depends heavily on the facts: where you were living, what the police knew, and what steps they took. Evidence — not assumptions — decides these applications. Every case is different, and this result turned on its particular record, but it is worth having the history of your case carefully reviewed by counsel before any conclusions are drawn.