Abstract
This case study of how the Supreme Court of Canada responded to institutional delay in criminal cases provides a number of lessons for American courts and sociolegal scholars. Social science evidence on the pace of litigation was accepted but was inadequately understood, leading to the dismissal of unprecedented numbers of pending cases. Better ways of using expert evidence are available and need to be considered. The constitutionalizing of court delay questions also reveals a degree of judicial activism greater than that found in American courts, suggesting that those courts are moving away from a purely adversarial model.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
