O.J. No. 5876, 2017 ONSC 6376 (S.C.J.), Leitch J. concluded that
delay associated with defence certiorari proceedings should not be
deducted from the Jordan delay calculation because the application was made on legitimate grounds to make full answer and
defence and was not designed to cause further delay: at paras. 52-
55. The court also concluded that a defence certiorari application
does not qualify as an exceptional circumstance or a discrete
exceptional event: Brezden, at para. 57. At para. 58, Leitch J.
explicitly stated that she did “not find Tsega persuasive for multiple reasons” and suggested that the decision is in conflict with
the underlying principles of Jordan.
 In R. v. Richards,  O.J. No. 5694, 2016 ONSC 6372
(S.C.J.), it was also held that the delay due to an unsuccessful
defence certiorari application should not be counted against the
defence. Salmers J. was satisfied that the certiorari application in
this case was legitimately undertaken to respond to the charges.
As it is the accused’s right to make a full answer and defence, the
certiorari application was a legitimate step in responding to the
charges. Therefore, the time required for the application does not
constitute defence delay: Richards, at para. 15. For the same
reason, the delay associated with the certiorari application should
not be considered an exceptional circumstance: Richards, at
 In contrast to the decisions in Brezden and Richards, in
R. v. Jansen,  O.J. No. 2465, 2017 ONSC 2954 (S.C.J.),
appeal to Ont. C.A. filed, C64827, the court deducted the delay
caused by the defence certiorari application from the total delay
on the basis that the application was withdrawn for lack of legal
aid and the grounds of the application were never argued: at para.
53. The court was unable to determine the legitimacy of the
application, a factor in determining whether the delay was
attributable to the defence. The court reasoned that the absence
of this evidence suggested that the application was frivolous:
Jansen, at para. 53. It concluded that the delays associated
with the certiorari application could be attributed to the defence
either as defence delay or as an exceptional circumstance: Jansen,
at para. 76.
 The court reached a similar result in R. v. Codina, 
O.J. No. 4578, 2017 ONSC 4886 (S.C.J.), leave to appeal to C.A.
filed, C65015, where three meritless certiorari applications by the
accused were used as evidence of the accused’s lack of effort to
expedite the proceedings. The reasons of this decision imply that
the delays associated with meritless applications were attributable to defence caused delay: Codina, at paras. 102, 109, 112-113.