848 THE ADVOCATE
VOL. 79 PART 6 NOVEMBER 2021
Quicklaw’s database is more complete than the currently
available public databases that use neutral
citations. See Thom Neale, “Citation Analysis of
Canadian Case Law” (2013) 1:1 Journal of Open
Access to Law 1 at 25.
12. The underlying dataset is available from the author.
13. For the less mathematically inclined, this means, for
example, that decisions like Delgamuukw v British
Columbia (1991), 79 DLR (4th) 185 (SC), which took
374 days of trial, were not permitted to distort the
general averages.
14. The author was unable to determine the ratio of unpublished
to published reasons in British Columbia.
15. In the interests of completing this project, a line had
to be drawn somewhere, however arbitrary.
16. These are corrected averages.
17. Sample of six months of data per year. Includes decisions
issued in that year, even if heard in a preceding
year.
18. One day or less recorded as “1”. Obviously, there is
a distinction between a five-minute matter and a full
day matter, but the available data did not permit that
kind of distinction.
19. Includes date of judgment.
20. Oral judgments recorded as “0”. Accordingly, the
statistic applies only to reserved decisions.
21. Quicklaw (search by date range: January 1, year
to December 31, year; search term: “year B.C.J.”;
court: BC superior courts (i.e., County and
Supreme)).
22. Some reviewers questioned whether the 1970 number
is an undercount, given its significant difference
even from 1980. The author was unable to locate an
alternative cross-check on the number of reported
decisions for that year (CanLII shows only 99 decisions
and the B.C. Courts website shows none), so
the later tables use 1980 for analysis of this metric,
below.
23. BC Supreme Court Annual Reports for 2011–2015.
24. 1980 figure.
25. Includes decisions on the merits brought by way of ap-
plication (e.g., summary trial, summary judgment).
26. The statistics are not able to reflect the length of a trial
over calendar (real-world) time: as practitioners and
judges well know, it is common for trials to be interrupted
or split, especially between the end of evidence
and final submissions. This additional delay
does not present itself in any of the metrics addressed
in this paper.
27. Quicklaw (search by date range: January 1, year
to December 31, year; search term: “year B.C.J.”;
court: BC Court of Appeal).
28. “No Information”.
29. For the same reason as with the BC Supreme Court
decisions, the tables below use 1980 for comparative
purposes.
30. 2015 Court of Appeal Annual Report at 38.
31. 1980.
32. 1990.
33. The statistic applies only to reserved decisions.
34. “No change”.
35. 1990.
36. 1990.
37. 1990.
38. Data compiled from Supreme Court of Canada
Annual Reports (2002–present) and Supreme Court
of Canada Reports on Lexum. Includes both appeal
judgments and applications (other than leave).
39. Court statistics 1997–present provided by “month”.
Used 30.42 days as equivalent to convert to a
“month”. 1970–1990 calculated manually based on
dates on face of SCRs.
40. Six months of data only, owing to the 159 judgments
issued that year and the need to manually count
paragraphs.
41. Canadian Judicial Council, Ethical Principles for
Judges (2004), ch 4, at para 10, online: <cjcccm.
ca/cmslib/general/news_pub_judicialconduct
_Principles_en.pdf>. Legislation and rules of court
may establish times within which judgment is to be
given: see e.g. Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR c
C-25.01, art 324; repeated inability to give timely
judgment has been the basis of a number of complaints
to the Canadian Judicial Council: see Canadian
Judicial Council, Annual Report 1992-93 at 14,
art 10.
42. See the Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43,
s 123(5) and the Judicature Act, RSPEI 1988, c J-
2.1, ss 26(6)–(7). By contrast, the Washington State
constitution requires that judgments be rendered
within 90 days of hearing and suspends the salary of
any judge who has a decision “uncompleted or
undecided for more than six months”: Washington
Constitution, Art 4, § 20 and Revised Code of Washington
, §§ 2.04.092 and 2.06.062.
43. 1998 BC Supreme Court Annual Report at 1–2
emphasis added.
44. In the six-month study period.
45. In the six-month study period.
46. Data compiled from the Supreme Court Reports and
statistics.
47. Chief Justice McLachlin, as she then was, indicated in
conversation with the author that some of the delay
may relate to the need for translation and review for
publication.
48. Average length of time between hearing and judgment
for all decisions.
49. Average length of time between hearing and judgment
for all decisions.
/news_pub_judicialconduct_Principles_en.pdf