Jurisdiction of the Court and loss of jurisdiction is a bit of a complicated topic. What is written below is by no means a comprehensive explanation of jurisdiction issues.

jurisdiction of the Court? 

For the purpose of criminal law, "jurisdiction of the court" refers to the official power of the Court to enforce the law.  Put another way, jurisdiction as it relates to Courts reflects the authority of the judicial body to make legal decisions, administer justice and even to control its own process.  With respect criminal law, lawyers often think about jurisdiction in terms of the court's power of the person and the process. 

Jurisdiction over the person constitutes the authority that the particular court has over individuals who come before it. For example, pursuant to s. 553 of the Criminal Code of Canada, Provincial Courts have absolute jurisdiction over persons charged with an inventory of defined offences enumerated within that section of the Criminal Code. This includes criminal offences such as theft, fraud and possession of stolen property under $5000, mischief contrary to s. 430(4), and various administrative criminal offences, such as failing to comply with probation orders, bail orders and failing to attend court.  This means that fixed with absolute jurisdiction over certain charges, the accused does not have certain options, such as the right to elect to have the criminal case heard by a Superior Court judge.  

Provincial Courts also have immediate jurisdiction, albeit not exclusive jurisdiction over summary elect matters. I will discuss in more detail shortly.

In Canada, there are levels of Court.  Canada's highest court is the Supreme Court of Canada. Canada's common law is supposed to adhere to the principle of stare decisis; meaning that lower courts are bound by decisions made by higher courts. Ranked underneath the Supreme Court of Canada is the Federal Court of Appeal, Provincial and Territorial Courts of Appeal and a Military Court of Appeal (the Court Martial Appeal Court).  Therefore, for the purpose of cases in Alberta, the Court of Appeal is bound by the Supreme Court and trial Courts are bound by the Supreme Court of Canada, followed by the Alberta Court of Appeal. Underneath the Appellate Court in each Province are the Superior trial Courts, such as the Federal Court,  Tax Courts and in Alberta, the Court of King's Bench of Alberta. The next of Court are Provincial trial courts, such as in Alberta, the Alberta Court of Justice. Below Provincial Courts are administrative tribunals, such as in Alberta, SafeRoads. 

Pursuant to s. 469 of the Criminal Code, Superior Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over an inventory of series offences such as murder, treason, mutiny and crimes alleging that the accused intimidated a member of parliament or a legislature. This means that a Provincial Court judge has no jurisdiction to preside over a murder case; for only a Superior Court judge (Court of King's Bench of Alberta judge) can do so. 

Judges are appointed by Governments. With that in mind, while I think a few higher court judges would debate this point, it is the opinion of this Alberta defence lawyer that it would be incorrect to think that judges in higher courts are necessarily more qualified, skilled, civil or intelligent than judges of lower courts. In Calgary, for example, there are a fair number of exceptionally talented judges who are arguably more capable than their higher court counterparts. Alas, I digress. 

My point is, when thinking about the jurisdiction of the Court, it is important to have a least a basic understanding of what the court is empowered to do. 

hybrid offences

While there are a relatively small number of offences falling specifically to one level or a court, most Criminal Code offences are "hybrid"; meaning, depending on the Crown's election, the accused may have some control over the court where his or her case will be tried.  For example, the crime of "assault" contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code of Canada is a hybrid, meaning that the Crown can choose to prosecute that offence summarily or by indictment.

Summary prosecutions are generally less serious than indictable matters. Summary matters almost always reflect lower, more flexible sentencing options (if convicted), while indictable offences often carry much higher penalties on conviction. Summary assault carries a maximum penalty of 2 years less-a-day, while indictable assault carries a maximum penalty of 10 years. 

If the Crown elects summarily in a hybrid offence, the accused cannot elect to have the case decided by a Superior Court. However, if a crown elects by indictment, the accused elect his or her "mode of trial".  Specifically, the accused can choose to have the case heard by a Provincial Court judge or a Superior Court Judge alone or by Superior Court judge and jury. For most indictable offences, the accused also has the option for a preliminary inquiry prior to trial. 

mixed informations/indictments

Now, the issue can be complicated in circumstances where an accused is charged on the same Information/Indictment with a variety of offences, including indictable offences or matters that the Crown elects by indictment and absolute jurisdiction offences or offences where a summary election is made. In this situation, since a Superior Court, unlike a Provincial Court, is a court with inherent jurisdiction over all criminal matters, where there is an Information charging a mixture of indictable, summary and absolute jurisdiction offences, the Superior Court has the power to decide the case (including the lower court offences), as long as the summary matters arise out of the same circumstances as the indictable matters. R. v. Cave, 1978 CanLii 309 (BCSC) stands for the proposition that while provincial courts may have absolute jurisdiction, they don't have exclusive jurisdiction in some cases. 

All of this is essentially an academic preamble to the defence of 
"loss of jurisdiction".

Loss of Jurisdiction 

"Loss of jurisdiction " means that the Court has no power or legal authority over the person.  This can be a little complicated, because while jurisdiction can be lost over the person, the court might still have jurisdiction over the process. 

A common example of "loss of jurisdiction" in a criminal case occurs when the accused is compelled to court, but the Court does not take any action over the case to maintain its power over the accused. Every year, there are small number of criminal cases whereby the accused is compelled to attend, but the case does not exist on the court docket. When a case is not on the court docket, and the accused does not appear or attorn to the Court's jurisdiction, the judge in court has no knowledge of the case or accused and therefore is incapable of taking action in relation to the accused to preserve jurisdiction. When this occurs, the court loses jurisdiction over the accused due to a "want of prosecution". 

Whenever an accused attends court pursuant to legal compulsion and is not on the docket, it is important to get advice from a qualified criminal defence lawyer. There are a lot of nuances to every case where loss of jurisdiction is likely to occur. Suffice it to say, each case and each accused who may be able to take advantage of loss jurisdiction needs to understand the full compliment of benefits and consequences. 

While the Court might lose jurisdiction over the person (the accused), the Court does not necessarily lose jurisdiction over the process. This means that while the court has lost power over the person, its control over the process may empower it to take steps to regain jurisdiction over the person (the accused). In Pronvical Court, this is usually accomplished when the Court is made aware that the case did not fiind its way into the Courtroom and simply issues a summons to be served on the accused to re-compel the accused back to Court. 

Properly navigating loss of jurisdiction is a kind of defence to the charge. Summary matters must be initiated within 6 months from the date of the alleged offence. If the prosecution fails to initiate is prosecution in relation to summary matters within this timeline, they are stopped from prosecuting in the future. Accordingly, if the court loses jurisdiction of a summary case and the Crown fails to take steps to re-start the case within 6 months from the date of charge, the accused may be able to avoid prosecution due to the passage of time. 

Of course, indictable offences (or those elected by indictment) are not subject to estoppel-like limitation periods. 

If you believe the Court has lost jurisdiction or is about to lose jurisdiction over your case, it is important to consult with an experienced and qualified criminal defence lawyer. The best criminal defence lawyers in Calgary and elsewhere will competently advise you about what loss of jurisdiction means and how it applies to the specific circumstances of the case. There are no hard and fast rules. Loss of jurisdiction is often a dynamic situation that requires full consideration of the totality of developments -- including the pros and cons -- and can only be considered on a case-by-case basis. David Chow is a full service Calgary criminal lawyer who has advised clients about loss of jurisdiction.