B.J. Allison

The Crown brought a motion to summarily dismiss the accused's Charter application, which alleged violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(a) and (b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Applying the "manifestly frivolous" standard established in R. v. Haevischer, the court found that none of the accused's Charter arguments were manifestly frivolous.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the Charter application was allowed to proceed to a voir dire at trial.

The judge also provided observations on the efficiency and procedural considerations of such summary dismissal motions.

The Crown brought a Khan application to admit an audio/visual statement from a witness, Hailey Saikkonen, as substantive evidence after she testified that her memory of the incident was based on prior statements.

The defence conceded necessity due to the witness's lack of memory, leaving threshold reliability as the sole issue.

The court found both procedural and substantive reliability were established, noting the statement was given to police shortly after the incident without prompting, and the witness would be available for cross-examination.

The application was granted, allowing the statement to be used as substantive evidence by the jury.

The accused, Kaitlyn Trudeau, facing charges including aggravated assault, brought an application to introduce bad character evidence against two complainants, Vern Otosquaiob and Robert Travis Wemigwans, to support a self-defence claim.

The application sought to admit evidence of their propensity for violence.

The court granted the application in part, allowing evidence of Otosquaiob's known propensity for violence and Wemigwans' unknown propensity based on his extensive criminal record, but excluded reference to Wemigwans' pending murder charge due to its prejudicial effect outweighing its probative value.

The offender was convicted of driving with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit causing bodily harm after operating a vehicle while impaired and driving the wrong way on a highway, resulting in a serious collision that caused life‑threatening injuries to another driver.

The court considered the offender’s youth, lack of criminal record, remorse, and positive personal circumstances alongside aggravating factors including significant impairment, extremely dangerous driving behaviour, and the severe and lasting injuries to the victim.

Applying the sentencing principles in ss. 718–718.2 of the Criminal Code and appellate guidance emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence for impaired driving offences, the court determined that a custodial sentence was required.

A term of imprisonment, probation, and a driving prohibition were imposed to reflect the gravity of the offence while recognizing the offender’s rehabilitative prospects.