After the Justice of the Peace has analyzed any contributions you have made to the delay in reaching a trial date, the actions of the crown will be examined. The central issue to this analysis will be whether the prosecutor has met his or her obligation to provide disclosure within a reasonable time. The principle of early disclosure is one that is implicit in the legal system today, and finds its roots in R. v. Stinchcombe. This landmark case stated that early disclosure is beneficial as it fosters the resolutions of many charges without the need to go to trial, and as a result makes the process more efficient for everyone. Stinchcombe further states that “the obligation to disclose will be triggered by a request by or on behalf of the accused. Such a request may be made at any time after the charge” (scc.lexum.org/en/1991/1991scr3-326/1991scr3-326.html). As a result, if you have documented proof that you made several disclosure requests to the crown and due to failure to provide that disclosure it was necessary to adjourn your matter, the onus will shift to the prosecutor to demonstrate why it was not provided. This delay is significantly beneficial to your 11(b) application as the blame for the delay until trial will fall to the crown.