Cindy Wasser

This endorsement addresses an oral motion brought by applicants in four consolidated parentage applications involving assisted reproductive technologies (ART).

The motion sought to dispense with the Superior Court of Justice Practice Direction's requirements for formal notice and media notification regarding discretionary publication bans and sealing orders under s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court considered the Dagenais/Mentuck test and the best interests of the child, finding that sealing orders are necessary to prevent serious risk to the proper administration of justice and to protect the privacy and dignity of the children, intended parents, surrogates, and their families.

The court concluded that the salutary effects of dispensing with notice and sealing the files outweigh any deleterious effects on public expression.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted to the respondents, who were charged with first-degree murder in the death of their infant daughter.

The trial judge stayed the charges due to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter, largely caused by the failings of the Crown's pathologist.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in including pre-charge delay in his calculation as a remedy for the cremation of the child's remains.

However, the Court upheld the stay, concluding that the post-charge delay of 55 months for one respondent and 42.5 months for the other was unreasonable and severely prejudiced their liberty and security interests.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge failed to adequately assist him as a self-represented accused and erred in admitting similar fact evidence without a complete voir dire.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge went to considerable lengths to assist the appellant without improperly taking on the role of counsel.

The Court also upheld the admission of the similar fact evidence, noting there was no evidence of collusion and the incidents bore sufficient similarities to confirm the complainant's veracity.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the verdict was unreasonable due to discrepancies in the victim's description, specifically the failure to notice a cleft chin.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the circumstantial evidence implicated the appellant and the victim's description was similar to the appellant's appearance.

The court concluded that the failure to notice a cleft chin was not an exculpatory dissimilarity and the verdict was not unreasonable.