Aarika Cheryl Heath

The Crown applied for certiorari and mandamus to quash a preliminary hearing judge's order discharging the accused on a charge of dangerous driving causing death.

The Crown alleged the accused and the deceased were street racing when the deceased crashed and died.

The reviewing judge found the preliminary hearing judge committed jurisdictional error by failing to take the Crown's evidence at its highest and by creating a reasonable apprehension of bias through excessive intervention and questioning of a police witness regarding speed calculations.

The application was granted, and the matter was remitted with a direction to commit the accused for trial on charges of dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving while street racing causing death.

In a criminal sexual assault prosecution involving two accused and a teenage complainant, the court addressed the appointment of an amicus curiae shortly before the scheduled trial.

One accused had dismissed her counsel one week before trial, creating the prospect that she would appear unrepresented in proceedings involving sensitive evidence from a young complainant.

The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to appoint an amicus to assist the court, including potentially conducting cross‑examination of the complainant and advising on legal issues.

The appointment was made to ensure a fair and orderly trial and to minimize harm to the complainant while preserving the integrity of the proceedings.

Once the accused retained new counsel before trial commenced, the court discharged the amicus from further involvement.

Sentencing following a jury conviction for sexual assault with a weapon, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a child victim aged 12–13.

The offender lured the victim to his home under the pretext of visiting his daughter, exposed her to pornography, used a knife to intimidate her, compelled her to remove her clothing and dance, and sexually touched her.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, citing the vulnerability of the child victim, the use of a weapon, and the offender’s breach of trust as aggravating factors.

The offender also had prior convictions for multiple sexual offences against minors.

Applying the Kienapple principle, the court stayed the sexual interference conviction and imposed custodial sentences on the remaining counts.

In a homicide prosecution, the Crown sought to introduce several hearsay statements attributed to a deceased victim and to unidentified bystanders during a fight.

The court considered whether the statements fell within the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule and whether they satisfied reliability requirements under the principled approach articulated in R. v. Khelawon.

The court admitted a statement reported by a witness that the victim said “Budja stabbed me” and described others holding him down, finding it spontaneous and proximate to the startling event and not so unreliable as to warrant exclusion.

However, statements allegedly shouted by unidentified bystanders during the fight were ruled inadmissible for the truth of their contents because the declarants were unknown and reliability could not be assessed.

Those statements were admissible only for the non-hearsay purpose of demonstrating what may have been audible to the accused during the altercation.