Bailey Rudnick

Following a conviction for mischief, the Crown applied for a psychiatric assessment under s. 672.11(b) of the Criminal Code to determine if the accused was not criminally responsible (NCR) due to a mental disorder.

The self-represented accused opposed the application.

The court reviewed a previous psychiatric report and the accused's trial testimony, which demonstrated persistent persecutory delusions.

The court found reasonable grounds to doubt the accused's criminal responsibility and ordered the assessment.

The self-represented accused, who is on the autism spectrum, sought to challenge prospective jurors for cause based on potential prejudice against persons on the autism spectrum.

Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Chouhan, the trial judge permitted the challenge, finding a reasonable possibility that bias or prejudicial attitudes exist in the community.

The judge also exercised her discretion to allow the accused and the Crown to alternate posing the challenge for cause questions to the jurors, departing from the general rule that the trial judge should pose the questions, in order to maintain the appearance of objective neutrality and accommodate the accused's strong preference.

The accused, charged with attempted murder and other domestic violence offences, applied for a bail review after being denied bail.

He argued that trial delay, medical issues, jail programming, and the prospect of a section 11(b) Charter stay constituted material changes in circumstances.

The court also ruled on an evidentiary issue, holding that the Crown generally cannot cross-examine a proposed surety on admissions made by the accused about the offences.

Ultimately, the court found no material change in circumstances and held that continued detention was necessary on tertiary grounds due to the gravity of the offences and the strength of the Crown's case.

The bail review application was dismissed.