B. Willson

The accused applied for a change of venue under s. 599(1)(a) of the Criminal Code in relation to charges of first-degree murder and offering an indignity to human remains.

They argued that extensive pre‑trial publicity, community hostility, and alleged inadequacies in the Sault Ste.

Marie courthouse facilities created a reasonable likelihood of juror prejudice and an unfair trial.

The court reviewed the governing jurisprudence on venue changes and the safeguards inherent in the jury selection and trial process.

It concluded that the applicants failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that community bias or prejudice could not be mitigated through those safeguards.

The court also found that the courthouse facilities were capable of accommodating the trial and that logistical concerns did not justify relocation.

During a trial for aggravated assault and assault arising from an altercation at a stag and doe party, the accused brought a Charter s. 7 application seeking a stay of proceedings.

They argued that the Crown's continued prosecution amounted to an abuse of process because the Crown's main witness was contradicted by other Crown witnesses.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the Crown's decision to proceed did not amount to flagrant impropriety and that it is the role of the trier of fact to assess conflicting evidence.

A case conference addressed two related proceedings: a family law claim for spousal support and an estates dispute regarding the validity of wills and powers of attorney for an incapable individual.

The court ordered extensive financial disclosure from multiple parties who had managed or received funds belonging to the incapable individual, including bank statements, property disposition records, and expense breakdowns.

The court rejected the spouse’s position that she could retain and manage the incapable individual’s assets without disclosure, finding that her claim for spousal support created an adverse interest requiring transparency.

The court also ordered hospital records to be produced and directed that no interlocutory steps occur in the estates proceeding until a pre‑trial conference.