On March 1, 2013, the appellants again advised the court
that they would bring a s. 11(b) application. (It is this application that was defined, above, as the “Application”). The dates of
June 12 and 13, 2013 were set aside for it and other pre-trial
motions were set to begin on August 6, 2013.
 At a judicial pre-trial on May 17, 2013, counsel for Gopie
asked to adjourn the Application (scheduled for June 12 and 13)
due to a conflict in his schedule. The Application was adjourned
to August 6 and 7, 2013, and the pre-trial motions that had been
scheduled for that week were rescheduled to begin on the first
day of the trial (January 6, 2014).
 There were numerous judicial pre-trials held in July and
August of 2013 concerning the Application. On the appearances
on May 17, July 19, July 23, August 6 and August 15, transcripts necessary for the Application remained outstanding. The
Application was adjourned to October 7 and 15, 2013.
 The Application did not proceed on October 7, 2013. At
an appearance on September 23, 2013, the Crown advised that
the appellants’ Application materials were late and some transcripts were still missing. The hearing dates of October 7 and 15,
2013, were vacated and the matter was rescheduled to December 2 and 3, 2013.
 From December 2, 2013, to January 6, 2014, the parties
were preparing for trial and the Application was argued.
 The trial commenced on January 6, 2014, and ended on
February 14, 2014.
(b) The application judge’s decision
 The application judge found the total delay from the
time the appellants were charged to the anticipated completion
of trial was 1,324 days or 43.5 months.
 He rejected the appellants’ submission that this was a
routine drug importation case. He described it as a complex
case involving multiple accused, border officials and RCMP
officers from two provinces (Ontario and Quebec), and voluminous disclosure. He took judicial notice of the fact that it is
not a common occurrence in a drug importation case for the
accused to include both the alleged drug couriers and the
alleged masterminds behind the transaction. He also noted
that the reasons for the delay in this case were interrelated
and interwoven, with a series of different and concurrent factors causing the same period of delay. Where the reasons for
delay were attributable to both the Crown and the accused, he
treated the delay as neutral.