Accordingly, I would dismiss this ground of appeal.
3. Was the application wrongly decided?
 With the exception of this ground of appeal, to avoid confusion, I have dealt with the Gopie and Sargeant appeals
separately. However, on this ground, Gopie and Sargeant are
similarly situated (both are the appellant) and advance similar
arguments. For that reason, I deal with their appeals against
the dismissal of the Application together.
 It took 43.5 months from when Gopie and Sargeant (the
“appellants”) were charged to the completion of their trial. Gopie
and Sargeant say this delay was unreasonable and a breach of
their rights under s. 11(b) of the Charter under both the new
Jordan2 framework and the former Morin one. They ask this
court to set aside the dismissal of their Application, grant the
Application and make an order staying the proceedings.
 The Crown submits that when the time period is properly
assessed for defence delay, the net delay is below the 30-month
ceiling and is presumptively reasonable. Alternatively, it says
the delay is justified as a transitional exceptional circumstance.
 I conclude that the delay in this case is justified. To
explain how I reach this conclusion, I will (a) review the factual
background relevant to the Application; (b) summarize the
application judge’s decision; (c) set out the Jordan framework;
and (d) apply the Jordan framework to this case.
(a) The factual background for the application
 The information charging the appellants with the offences
was sworn on July 8, 2010. The jury rendered its verdict on February 21, 2014, approximately 43.5 months later.
 Following the swearing of the information, various procedural steps took place: counsel were retained; bail hearings
were held; disclosure was provided; and judicial pre-trials were
 At a judicial pre-trial on October 29, 2010, the Crown
advised that she intended to rely on s. 540(7) of the Criminal
Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 in calling evidence relating to the
appellants’ arrest, and further indicated she would call only
one witness, Fraser. The parties estimated that the preliminary
2 R. v. Jordan,  1 S.C.R. 631,  S.C.J. No. 27, 2016 SCC 27.