There are so many problems with this editorial, it's hard to deal with all of them. However, the most basic error is the claim that "This is the third time since the creation of the Charter that the Supreme Court has tried to figure out a rule on how long of a wait is too long."

That's not true. It's the *fourth* major SCC decision on this issue: (1) Mills, (2) Askov, (3) Morin, (4) Jordan.  

Criminal lawyers hate Mills, because it actually spends a lot of time contemplating the resource limits of the justice system, and what is fair in the context of a system where money is limited. (Mills actually considers the reality that more money poured into the justice system is likely to mean less money for the healthcare system -- it's in there!) It's a particularly good read to contrast Mills with Jordan, just to understand how far the modern Supreme Court has gone off the rails in its interpretation of the Charter. There is little in Jordan even acknowledging that resources are finite.