R. v. Jordan[2] was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which rejected the framework traditionally used to determine whether an accused was tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and replaced it with a presumptive ceiling of 18 months between the charges and the trial in a provincial court without preliminary inquiry, or 30 months in other cases.

His appeal to the Supreme Court of British Columbia was dismissed because it was judged Jordan had not suffered significant prejudice as required by the framework.

[7] Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Brown JJ., speaking for the majority, found that the framework set out in R v Morin caused significant complications and contributed to a culture of delay and complacency.

They pointed out that the application of the framework was unpredictable, relied on the notion of prejudice, which is "confusing, hard to prove, and highly subjective", didn't encourage the courts and parties to prevent delays, and was unduly complex.

: requesting unnecessary postponements, or an insufficient effort to accommodate the scheduling of court appearances), so an accused cannot slow the judicial process to their advantage.