Adam Campbell

The accused, charged with 12 offences on a single indictment involving physical assaults against his son and sexual offences against his daughter, applied to sever the counts.

The court applied the factors from R. v. Last to determine if severance was in the interests of justice.

Finding a significant risk of prejudice to the accused through credibility cross-pollination and improper propensity reasoning, and noting the tenuous factual and legal nexus between the two sets of charges, the court concluded that a limiting instruction to the jury would be insufficient.

The application was granted, and the counts relating to the son were severed from those relating to the daughter.

The applicant, facing a multi-count indictment including charges of sexual assault, criminal harassment, firearms offences, and failure to comply with a release order, brought a motion for severance under s. 591(3) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant sought to have the charges severed into five separate trials, arguing that trying them together would cause prejudice and risk the jury engaging in propensity reasoning.

The court applied the factors from R. v. Last and found that the counts shared a factual and legal nexus, primarily revolving around the credibility of the complainants.

The court concluded that the risk of prejudice was low, as juries are presumed capable of following limiting instructions, and that practical considerations, including witness convenience and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, favoured a single trial.

The motion for severance was dismissed.

The accused brought an application for a bail review under s. 520(1) of the Criminal Code, seeking to vacate a detention order and be released on strict conditions, including house arrest with a surety and electronic monitoring.

The court found that the threshold for a de novo review was met due to errors by the Justice of the Peace and material changes in circumstances, specifically the COVID-19 pandemic and the availability of free electronic monitoring.

However, the court ultimately dismissed the application, finding that the accused failed to satisfy the reverse onus under s. 524.

The court held that the proposed release plan was insufficient to mitigate the significant primary and secondary ground concerns, given the accused's extensive criminal record, history of fleeing police, and untreated substance abuse issues.