Jonathan Dawe and Michael Dineen, for appellant.
Amy Alyea, for respondent.
The judgment of the court was delivered by
HOURIGAN J.A.: —
 In February 2010, three young men from Toronto, Dylon
Barnett, Kristopher McLellan and Kyle Mullen, carried out
a home invasion in Barrhaven, Ontario. The target of the inva-
sion, Michael Swan, was shot and killed during the robbery. The
three men, referred to as the “Toronto Three” by the trial judge,
were arrested hours after the home invasion. Several months
later the police arrested the appellant, alleging that he was
responsible for directing the Toronto Three to Mr. Swan’s home
and supplying them with clothing to wear during the robbery.
 The appellant was convicted of manslaughter in connection
with Mr. Swan’s death. He appeals his conviction on the grounds
that the trial judge erred in admitting certain hearsay statements
made by Messrs. Mullen and McLellan for the truth of their contents and in dismissing a post-conviction application pursuant to
s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In addition, the appellant seeks leave to appeal the sentence imposed by
the trial judge of nine years, less credit for pre-sentence custody.
 For the reasons I will detail below, I have concluded that the
manslaughter conviction must be set aside and a new trial
ordered. In summary, the law regarding the admission of hearsay
statements was fundamentally changed by the Supreme Court of
Canada in R. v. Bradshaw,  1 S.C.R. 865,  S.C.J. No.
35, 2017 SCC 35, which was released after the trial judge’s ruling
on the impugned hearsay statements in the case at bar. Applying
Bradshaw to the facts of this case leads to the inescapable conclusion that the statements should not have been admitted for
the truth of their contents. Although I am not satisfied that the
appellant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time has been
violated and I ultimately conclude that the trial judge’s s. 11(b)
ruling should not be interfered with, I depart from the trial
judge’s reasoning and offer what I view to be the correct analytical approach for considering the impact of extraordinary remedies
on an accused’s s. 11(b) rights.
 The following brief factual summary will serve to put the
issues in this appeal into context.