Adam Weisberg

The accused, charged with sexual assault against his former spouse, sought directions on whether affidavits filed by the complainant in their family law proceedings constituted 'records' under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown argued the affidavits contained personal information and required scrutiny under the s. 278 regime.

The court held that the affidavits were not records, as they were voluntarily filed in public adversarial proceedings, meaning the complainant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in them.

Consequently, a s. 278.93 application was not required for their use.

The offender, a 31-year-old first-time offender, was found guilty of sexual assault after forcing the complainant to have vaginal intercourse twice.

The Crown sought 28 months' custody, while the defence sought 14 to 18 months followed by probation.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the highly aggravating circumstances of the major sexual assault and the offender's lack of remorse, while acknowledging his lack of prior record.

The offender was sentenced to two years in the penitentiary along with ancillary orders.

The applicants, two firefighters charged with fraud, money laundering, and obstruction of justice, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay from the date of the charges to the anticipated end of the trial was 35 months and one week.

After deducting three months of conceded defence delay, the net delay was 32 months and one week, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The Crown argued that additional periods, including a two-month delay for a judicial pre-trial, a two-month adjournment of the preliminary inquiry, and a seven-week judicial reserve period, should be deducted as defence delay or exceptional circumstances.

The court rejected the Crown's arguments, finding that the delays were not caused by the defence and that the Crown failed to take proactive steps to mitigate them.

The court concluded that the delay was unreasonable and granted a stay of proceedings.

The accused applied on a bail review to remove a no-contact condition with the complainant spouse following allegations of domestic assault.

The complainant expressed a desire to reconcile and resume cohabitation, and both parties had begun counselling.

The court considered the risk of interference with the administration of justice and the need to protect the complainant under s. 515 of the Criminal Code.

While the court found no evidence of manipulation or interference with witnesses, it remained concerned about potential safety risks given the seriousness of the alleged assault.

The court declined to fully remove the no-contact condition but permitted contact during joint counselling sessions as a risk‑management measure.

The appellants appealed their summary convictions and sentences arising from a group assault and robbery at a massage parlour.

Liang argued his conviction was unreasonable and his sentence unfit; his appeal was dismissed as the verdict was supported by evidence and the sentence was appropriate for a violent group attack.

Loi argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial lawyer conceded his liability without instructions.

The court found that Loi's counsel made an unauthorized concession equivalent to a guilty plea, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

Loi's appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.