D’Arcy Leitch

This endorsement addresses the adjournment of three criminal trials (R. v. Q., R. v. D.O., R. v. J.N.) scheduled to commence in the Superior Court of Justice in Milton.

The trials were adjourned due to recent findings of contamination and ongoing assessment of the courthouse building, rendering it unsafe for in-person proceedings.

The court emphasized that the health and safety of all participants, including potential jurors, litigants, lawyers, accused persons, and witnesses, was the overarching priority, necessitating the extraordinary step of adjourning matters until further notice.

The Crown applied to admit a witness's prior police statement under the 'past recollection recorded' exception to the hearsay rule or, alternatively, under the principled approach to hearsay, arguing for its threshold reliability.

The court dismissed both applications, finding that the witness's memory loss was not genuine for the 'past recollection recorded' exception, and that the statement lacked sufficient procedural and substantive reliability under the principled approach due to issues with its recording, absence of oath/caution, and inconsistencies with other evidence.

The accused, Bryan Babic, brought a Charter application seeking to exclude evidence obtained in alleged violation of sections 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) and 9 (arbitrary detention and unlawful arrest) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The application arose from his arrest for robbery and disguise with intent, following police identifying his vehicle as the getaway car from a prior robbery.

The court found that the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the high-risk take-down and arrest, and that the subsequent search of his vehicle's trunk was a lawful search incident to arrest, aimed at discovering evidence of the offence.

Both the section 9 and section 8 applications were dismissed.

The defendant, Michael Aranovsky, was charged with driving with excess alcohol ("Over 80").

He argued involuntary intoxication, claiming he unknowingly consumed vodka-spiked watermelon as part of a prank by a friend.

The Crown contended the defence was implausible.

The court, applying principles of involuntary intoxication and the W.D. formula for credibility, found the defendant's evidence credible and sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt regarding his knowledge of the quantity of alcohol consumed.

The court emphasized that common sense inferences about taste or effects of alcohol cannot be drawn without expert evidence in such cases.

The defendant was acquitted.