IntroductionOne of the few purposes of Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to ensure that the right to a fair trial for every person tried criminally on Canadian soil and the right to be tried within a reasonable time. This ensures that when the trial starts in court the evidence is fresh and available during the trial. However, trials in the Canadian justice system can be delayed due to many factors where criticism may fall on the Crown or the accused. This essay will examine the case R. v. Morin of the Supreme Court of Canada. In this case, the defendant was charged with impaired driving and the trial date was set 399 days after the judge set the trial. In total, 444 days have passed since the accused was charged with the crime of impaired driving. The final verdict in this case set a precedent in the justice system due to the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling that the delay in the trial was reasonable due to the lack of prejudice to the accused during the delay. This essay will analyze the entire R. v. Morin case and evaluate the facts, issues, positions of the Crown and the defendants. The decisions made during this case and the reasons that ultimately lead to the final verdict of the Ontario Court of Appeal. This essay will evaluate the decision whether the delay of the R. v. Morin case and the cases for which it set a precedent were valid decisions made by the court. This evaluation will describe the arguments made by both sides during these trials. We will discuss how the decision made by the court to decide that the delay in the trial was reasonable if the decisions had been correct and if section 11(b) of the Charter had not been breached. The essay will also discuss the judicial cases R. against Godin...... half of the document ......aside from the duration of the delay, the prejudice towards the accused can be deduced from the duration of the delay as established in case R. v. Morin. Looking at the Morin guidelines it was decided and since the guidelines provided for an institutional delay of 8 to 10 months and in this case the court found that the Crown was responsible for 23 months of delay. The court failed to justify the reason for the 23 month delay and as it exceeded the Morin guidelines, the court concluded that the delay was unreasonable and that the defendant's right under section 11(b) of the Charter was had been violated and that the trial had taken place within a reasonable time. time has been violated and denied. Personal Analysis I consider the guidelines derived from R. c. Morin as a game changer in the justice system in terms of how to decide on unreasonable delay and clarifying the right under section 11(b) of the Charter.