Craig A. Brannagan

In a criminal pretrial evidentiary ruling in a sexual-offence prosecution, the court determined cross-applications by the prosecution and the accused regarding prior discreditable conduct and defence-held records under Criminal Code ss. 278.92 and 278.93.

Applying the governing admissibility framework, the court held that the prosecution’s proposed background and narrative bad-character evidence lacked sufficient material relevance and probative force, and that its prejudicial risks outweighed any limited value.

On the accused’s application, the court held family law materials were not "records" under s. 278.1, dismissed portions linked to a now-moot response theory, and declined to assess sexual-activity messages absent a proper s. 276 application.

The court found selected text-message tabs were capable of meeting the Stage One threshold by supporting a potential motive-to-fabricate theory and directed those materials forward to Stage Two.

In this criminal trial on a charge under s. 88 of the Criminal Code, the central issue was whether the accused possessed a concealed machete for a peaceful purpose or for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.

The defence argued a culinary purpose tied to purchasing coconuts and sugar cane and submitted the machete was swung once in self-defence after an unprovoked punch.

The court accepted the independent civilian and police evidence, rejected key parts of the accused’s testimony as implausible and unreliable, and found the post-incident handling of the machete supported an inference of consciousness of guilt.

Applying the governing framework for s. 88 offences and the proportionality analysis under s. 34 self-defence principles, the court concluded the possession was for an offensive dangerous purpose.

The accused was convicted.

The applicant, charged with multiple sexual offences against his three children, sought production of child protection records held by Simcoe Muskoka Family Connexions (SMFC) from 2016, 2018, and 2022 under section 278.3 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown and complainants conceded that 2024 records directly related to the charges could be produced.

The applicant sought the earlier records claiming they were likely relevant to family dynamics and the complainants' credibility.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to establish that the disputed records were likely relevant to any issue at trial or to witness competency, and that production was not necessary in the interests of justice.

The court emphasized that child welfare records attract high privacy protection and that the applicant's status as the parent of the complainants does not diminish the complainants' privacy interests.

The defendant pleaded guilty to four counts of voyeurism contrary to section 162(1) of the Criminal Code.

Over a six-month period, he surreptitiously observed and video recorded four female roommates using a bathroom in their shared residence through a hole in the wall.

The Crown and defence initially submitted for a 12-month conditional sentence order, but the court rejected this joint submission and imposed a custodial sentence of 42 days on each count (168 days total, approximately five and one-half months) to be served consecutively, followed by 18 months probation with conditions including counselling, no contact orders, and a 100-metre exclusion zone from the victims' residences, workplaces, and places of study.

The Crown applied for an order permitting a witness (the former intimate partner of the accused) to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV) from outside the courtroom and in the company of a support person in a trial for breach of a recognizance.

The accused opposed the application, arguing that the witness should testify in-person behind a privacy screen.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that the witness would experience psychological and physiological distress if required to testify in the presence of the accused, and that CCTV and a support person would facilitate her ability to provide full and candid testimony.