The right to be tried within a reasonable time has been plagued by two problems since its very early days, and the majority decision in attempts to address both of those issues head on. Those issues relate to the role of prejudice in the section 11(b) analysis, and the failure to conceptually separate individual delay cases from institutional delay cases. There can be no guarantee that the new framework will succeed, and the criticisms made the minority raise legitimate concerns. Nonetheless the majority approach seems like a sensible attempt to try to shake off the culture of complacency about delay which the Court refers to, and which, it should be acknowledged, the Court's own decision in Morin largely created.