Blair Crew

The accused, charged with sexual assault and other offences, sought leave under s. 278.92 of the Criminal Code to use the complainant's hospital records during cross-examination.

The records, which were disclosed by the Crown, contained statements made by the complainant to a social worker and physician that were inconsistent with her subsequent police statement.

The court weighed the factors under s. 278.92(3) and found that the accused's right to make full answer and defence outweighed the complainant's privacy interests.

The court granted the application, allowing the accused to use the records to prove prior inconsistent statements.

The accused was convicted of possession of contraband cigarettes and faced a mandatory minimum fine of $9,600 under the Excise Act.

Finding the accused unable to pay and concluding that jail was inappropriate, the trial judge imposed a conditional sentence in default of payment.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that a conditional sentence is a form of imprisonment and cannot be used merely to enforce an unpaid fine where the offender genuinely lacks the means to pay.

The Court set aside the conditional sentence but stayed further collection procedures since the sentence had already been served.

The appellants, family members of a deceased cyclist, appealed an order striking their negligent investigation claim against a municipal police officer and his employer.

They alleged the officer's post-accident investigative failures caused the collapse of criminal proceedings against the driver and prolonged their emotional distress through subsequent disciplinary proceedings.

Applying the motion to strike standard and the Kamloops duty of care framework, the court held the investigating officer owed no private law duty of care to the appellants because they had no legal interest in the criminal investigation, prosecution, or discipline process.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the issuance and execution of a search warrant for records.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the conditions imposed on the warrant's execution were sufficient and that the appellant failed to show a section 8 Charter violation affecting the issuing judge's jurisdiction.

The Court left open the possibility for the appellant to argue at trial that certain documents are inadmissible due to common-law privilege or a section 7 Charter violation.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault.

At trial, he challenged the constitutionality of the 'rape shield' provisions in s. 276 of the Criminal Code, which restrict the admissibility of evidence of a complainant's prior sexual activity.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of the provisions, finding that they do not violate the accused's right to make full answer and defence, the right to a fair trial, or the right against self-incrimination.

The Court held that the provisions properly balance the accused's rights with the need to protect the integrity of the trial process and the privacy of complainants.