By all accounts, it seemed like a simple case.
On a late summer day in 2022, a Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officer was reviewing police notes in a parking lot next to the liquor store on Topsail Road in St. John’s.
He spotted a truck driving in a manner that he thought may signal an impaired driver.
After the RNC officer pulled the driver over, he alleged that the driver walked towards him. A verbal exchange and physical altercation ensued.
According to the case summary referenced in court documents, the officer put his hands on the driver to arrest him for obstruction.
The man pulled away and grabbed the police officer by his vest, leading to a struggle before he was controlled and put in the backseat of the RNC cruiser.
A breathalyzer test returned a reading of zero. The driver was charged with obstruction and assaulting a police officer. He pleaded not guilty.
Because of the nature of the allegations, the defence wanted to know whether there were any allegations of serious misconduct on file for the officer involved.
There weren’t. But it took about 15 months for that information to be disclosed.
The so-called Jordan application in that case noted that the request for the disclosure remained outstanding throughout multiple court appearances, and involved a half dozen Crown prosecutors.
In 2025, nearly three years after the arrest, a judge stayed the charges, because the case took too long to get to trial, largely because of that disclosure delay.
A decade ago, the Supreme Court of Canada’s R. v. Jordan decision set timelines for trials to be completed from the time charges are laid — 18 months in provincial courts, and 30 months in superior courts. Anything longer than that is presumed to be unreasonable, unless those delays can be attributed to the defence or exceptional circumstances.
For the past year and a half, CBC Investigates has been working to identify cases that have been tossed due to those Jordan timelines. We tracked dockets, attended court proceedings virtually and in person from Wabush to St. John’s, reviewed stacks upon stacks of court records, and listened to hours upon hours of archived audio.
Our analysis shows that one of the driving factors is the delay in handing over disclosure — evidence in the case — to the defence.
Many of the cases involved lengthy time frames for what seemed to be relatively routine requests — like when those assault and obstruction charges were tossed. Some noted issues when matters were handed off from one Crown to another.
Among those cases:
CBC News found other cases where key evidence was lost, and where disclosure was delivered in a piecemeal fashion, often missing important components.
In an interview earlier this year, Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Chief Patrick Roche expressed his confidence in the force’s ability to assist in meeting Jordan timelines.
“We have technology brought in and steps brought in to ensure that we’re within the confines of those, with staff supplied to make sure we do so,” Roche said in February.
“And I don’t think there’s that many Jordan applications out there anymore outstanding. There may be some, but I think we’re being somewhat successful in the way that we are approaching it.”
At the time, CBC Investigates had asked Roche about comments made by a departed RNC officer who linked work-life balance concerns to the current complexity of police files, as well as added pressure from the Jordan ruling.
When recently asked about issues in cases identified by CBC Investigates, the RNC issued a statement noting that disclosure is a “two-step process” involving the police and Crown prosecutors.
“The RNC provides disclosure to the Crown; the Crown then independently manages disclosure to the accused, or their counsel,” the statement noted.
“We work closely with the Crown to facilitate the timely transfer of investigative materials. Decisions regarding the review, management, and release of disclosure to the defence fall within the responsibilities of the Crown.”
Why some criminal cases in N.L. don’t get through trial on time
The force pointed to the launch, in January 2025, of a digital evidence management system pilot project.
The RNC said the application is accessed through a smartphone, where digital evidence can be deposited, collected, and organized. Content is automatically uploaded to a platform where it can be securely transcribed, redacted, and shared with Crown prosecutors and partner agencies.
The pilot project involved 60 officers. As of late last month, that number had grown to 378 using the system.
Newfoundland and Labrador’s director of public prosecutions, Lisa Stead, said her office is also hoping to improve internal processes with new technology that got funding in this year’s provincial budget.
Stead did not do an interview, but said in a statement that even simpler criminal cases involve different types of digital evidence and forensic examination, which all takes time.
In an email, Stead noted that disclosure of the complete file is a “process that continues beyond the earliest court appearances for an accused person.” She said the Crown has to review and vet all the material provided by police before handing it over to the defence.
“Given the large volume of multimedia materials being provided to and produced by the police, prosecution services are continually reassessing how best to deal effectively with these disclosure materials in an efficient manner,” Stead wrote.
The 2026 budget included funding to create a information management division and to purchase digital evidence management software.
“We anticipate these investments will help us to improve our processes for receiving file materials from the police and subsequently providing disclosure to defence,” Stead wrote.
Have a story for us to investigate or a tip to pass along? Get in touch. Email us at [email protected]
