What is the test for a judicial stay of proceedings when a judge finds that the delay is prima facie unreasonable?

A finding that the delay is prima facie unreasonable is not the end of the inquiry. Even lengthy delays can be tolerated if the accused suffers no substantial prejudice. In each case a balance must be achieved between the accused's right to be brought to trial within a reasonable time and society's interest in having criminal charges prosecuted. Thus the presence or absence of prejudice becomes an extremely significant factor in determining whether an unreasonable delay warrants a judicial stay of proceedings. As described by Sopinka J. in Regina v. Morin, supra: The application of the guideline will also be influenced by the presence or absence of prejudice. If an accused is in custody or, while not in custody, subject to restrictive bail terms or conditions or otherwise experiences substantial prejudice, the period of acceptable institutional delay may be shortened to reflect the court's concern. On the other hand, in a case in which there is no prejudice or prejudice is slight, the guideline may be applied to reflect this fact. ... ... In a case in which prejudice is not inferred and is not otherwise proved, the basis for the enforcement of the individual right is seriously undermined.