Appeal court ruling under the Jordan framework allows Former MPP Randy Hillier convoy case to proceed
The Ontario Court of Appeal has reinstated the criminal case against former Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston MPP Randy Hillier, overturning a 2024 decision that stayed the charges over delay.
Hillier faces nine charges related to his participation in the 2022 Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa, including mischief, counselling others to commit mischief, assaulting a peace officer, and resisting or obstructing a peace officer. The allegations have not been proven in court.
In November 2024, Superior Court Justice Kerry McVey stayed the charges after finding the case exceeded the 30 month ceiling set for Superior Court matters under the Supreme Court of Canada’s Jordan framework. That framework, established in 2016, sets presumptive time limits for criminal cases to be completed in order to protect an accused person’s right to be tried within a reasonable time.
For cases in Superior Court, the ceiling is 30 months from the laying of charges to the anticipated end of trial. If that limit is exceeded, the delay is presumed to be unreasonable unless the Crown can demonstrate that it was justified by exceptional circumstances.
Delays attributed to the defence are deducted from the total timeline. Additional periods may also be excluded if they fall under exceptional circumstances, which can include events that are reasonably unforeseen or outside the Crown’s control. The classification of delay has become a central issue in many criminal cases since the Jordan decision was introduced.
In Hillier’s case, the trial judge calculated the total delay at just over 31 months after accounting for defence-related delays and other factors. Based on that calculation, the court concluded that the timeline exceeded the Jordan limit and that Hillier’s right to be tried within a reasonable time had been breached. As a result, the charges were stayed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, however, found the trial judge made an error in how part of that delay was assessed.
At issue was a 93 day period that arose after a motion to move the trial outside Ottawa had to be rescheduled. The trial judge found the Crown had not taken sufficient steps to secure an earlier hearing date and treated the delay as attributable to the prosecution.
The appeal court reached a different conclusion. It found the delay resulted from exceptional circumstances and should have been deducted from the overall timeline.
According to the ruling, the Crown accepted one of the earliest available dates, and there was no indication that an earlier hearing could reasonably have been obtained. The court also noted
that all parties appeared to proceed on the understanding that no earlier date was available at the time.
Once the 93 day period was excluded, the total delay fell within the 30 month Jordan ceiling. As a result, the legal basis for the stay no longer applied, allowing the prosecution to continue.
The decision means the case will now return to Superior Court for further proceedings, where the charges will be addressed on their merits.
The ruling also reflects the ongoing complexity of applying the Jordan framework, particularly in cases involving multiple pre trial motions, scheduling constraints, and competing interpretations of responsibility for delay. Courts across Canada continue to refine how delays are categorized, including the threshold for what constitutes exceptional circumstances.
Hillier responded to the decision in a March 25 post on his Substack, The Endless Prosecution, stating he was “deeply disappointed” by the outcome and describing the case as entering its fifth year.
He wrote that the prosecution has taken a significant emotional and financial toll, estimating he has spent approximately $200,000 on legal expenses while living on a pension. He also said he has largely represented himself since 2023.
Hillier further argued the case amounts to a prosecution of political dissent and raised concerns about the financial burden placed on accused individuals navigating the legal system. Those claims have not been tested in court.
The Crown has not publicly commented on next steps. The matter is expected to proceed in Superior Court.
Looking beyond Lanark County, Leeds & Grenville? Explore more stories in The Wider Lens.
