Daniel MacAdam

During a trial for sexual offences against a minor, the defence cross-examined a Crown witness about a previously withdrawn criminal charge for obstructing a court proceeding.

The Crown objected to this line of questioning.

The court ruled that cross-examination on the fact of a withdrawn charge is generally impermissible as it has no bearing on credibility, though the underlying facts may be explored.

The court directed a mid-trial instruction to the jury to disregard the fact of the charge, but permitted the defence to further cross-examine the witness on the underlying facts.

During a trial for sexual offences against a minor, the Crown objected to the defence's anticipated cross-examination of the complainant's father, arguing the defence failed to put its theories of fabrication to the complainant during his cross-examination, violating the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

The defence conceded the violation but argued the complainant should be recalled to testify.

The court held that recalling the vulnerable 14-year-old complainant would subject him to an unreasonable burden and risk giving the evidence disproportionate attention.

Instead, the court ordered that a special instruction be given to the jury regarding the defence's failure to cross-examine the complainant on these issues.

Sentencing decision for fraud over $5,000 involving a $200,000 investment fraud against a close friend.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, particularly where the offender exploited a personal relationship and failed to show remorse or make restitution.

A conditional sentence was rejected as inappropriate given the magnitude of the fraud and lack of mitigating factors.

The court imposed a custodial sentence, probation, and a restitution order, but declined the Crown’s request for a fine in lieu of forfeiture intended to compel payment of restitution.