2 total
The court granted a motion for a reluctant complainant to testify via video link but denied it for a willing complainant.
The Crown brought a motion under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code to permit three complainants (RF, GR, and RG) to testify by video link in a sexual abuse trial.
The accused, William Robert Metcalfe, consented to RF testifying by video link but opposed for GR and RG.
The court granted the application for RF and RG, but dismissed it for GR.
For GR, the court found that his willingness to travel and the relatively low cost did not justify video testimony.
For RG, the court balanced factors including his reluctance to attend, fear of job loss, and the limited value of in-person demeanour assessment, concluding that video link was appropriate to ensure the truth-seeking function of the trial without negatively impacting the accused's right to a fair trial.
Rowbotham application granted; proceedings stayed until government-funded counsel provided due to applicant's indigence.
The applicant, facing historical sexual assault charges, brought a Rowbotham application for a stay of proceedings pending the provision of government-funded counsel.
Legal aid had been denied due to financial ineligibility.
The Crown conceded the applicant's right to a fair trial would be compromised without counsel but argued he had failed to prioritize saving funds for his defence.
The court reviewed the applicant's financial history, including the sale of his home and repayment of a significant loan to his son, and found his expenditures were not extravagant or a deliberate attempt to divest assets.
The court concluded the applicant established indigence and granted the stay.
