David G. Bayliss

The accused was tried for the second-degree murder of his wife, whose body was found near a gas tank on their property.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on motive, opportunity, and post-offence conduct, including the accused's destruction of his wife's poetry.

The defence argued the victim may have interrupted a gas theft or been killed by an alternate suspect with whom she was having an affair.

The court found the investigation had tunnel vision and failed to adequately explore other possibilities.

Concluding that the accused's guilt was not the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence, the court found the accused not guilty.

The defence brought an application to admit expert testimony from a psychotherapist on the issue of traumatic grief, specifically to explain the accused's conduct in discarding his murdered wife's poetry as a coping mechanism.

The Crown opposed the admission.

The court analyzed the necessity criterion under the Mohan framework for expert evidence.

The application was dismissed, with the court finding that the trier of fact possesses the requisite experience and knowledge to understand that grieving individuals may react in unpredictable ways, rendering the expert assistance unnecessary.

The accused brought an application seeking the trial judge's recusal, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the judge's findings of fact in previous pre-trial motions.

The accused argued that the judge's findings were palpably unreasonable and consistently favoured the prosecution.

The court dismissed the application, finding it was an attempt to reargue decided issues and that the allegations of bias were without merit.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, brought an application for bail.

The Crown sought to cross-examine the accused on his mandatory affidavit filed in support of the application.

The accused objected, arguing that compelled cross-examination would violate his Charter rights against self-incrimination.

The court held that the Crown is entitled to cross-examine the accused on his affidavit, as any evidence obtained could only be used for impeachment at trial, not for substantive guilt, per Supreme Court precedent.

The accused then sought to withdraw his affidavit to avoid cross-examination and proceed with the hearing using other evidence.

The court permitted the withdrawal but dismissed the bail application, ruling that it could not proceed without the mandatory affidavit required by the Criminal Proceedings Rules.

Following a lengthy jury trial for murder and attempted murder arising from a home invasion, the court addressed post‑charge objections raised by the Crown and several defence counsel regarding the jury instructions.

The objections concerned the adequacy of instructions on forcible confinement, party liability, the mental state required for planned and deliberate murder, and the temporal‑causal connection required for constructive first degree murder under s. 231(5) of the Criminal Code.

The court held that the charge, when read as a whole, correctly conveyed the applicable legal principles and adequately reflected the parties’ positions.

With one limited exception, the court declined to give additional corrective instructions, finding the charge clear and legally sufficient.

The defendants, on trial for first-degree murder arising from a home invasion and robbery, raised numerous objections to the Crown's closing address to the jury.

The defence argued that the Crown misstated evidence, improperly referenced out-of-court statements, and undermined the presumption of innocence, seeking a mistrial or the right to make reply submissions.

The court reviewed the objections and found that while some of the Crown's comments required corrective instructions in the final jury charge, the conduct did not render the trial fundamentally unfair.

The applications for a mistrial and for reply submissions were dismissed.

During a lengthy jury trial for murder and attempted murder arising from a home invasion, the court ruled on several pre‑charge issues affecting the jury instructions and evidentiary materials.

The court addressed whether transcripts of recorded police statements should accompany the jury, whether certain medical records required redaction, and whether instructions on wilful blindness and alternative routes to first‑degree murder should be given.

The court allowed transcripts of most recorded statements to go to the jury but excluded the transcript of one accused’s statement due to lack of probative value.

Medical records referring to “severe hypoxia” were admitted without redaction.

The court declined to instruct the jury on wilful blindness for the driver accused, finding insufficient specificity of suspicion to impute knowledge.

During a jury trial for first degree murder arising from a home invasion robbery, the accused sought to introduce an excerpt from an audio-recorded statement he made to police while being transported after arrest.

The Crown objected, arguing the excerpt constituted an inadmissible prior consistent statement.

The court reviewed the governing principles regarding prior consistent statements, including the recognized exceptions and the principled exception articulated in appellate jurisprudence permitting admission of spontaneous exculpatory reactions when an accused is first confronted with an accusation.

Considering the circumstances of the transport conversation, including the investigative questioning designed to startle the accused and the contextual uncertainty regarding spontaneity, the court concluded the statement should be admitted.

The jury would be instructed that the statement was not admitted for the truth of its contents but could be considered as circumstantial evidence of the accused’s state of mind and reaction when confronted with evidence of involvement.

During a multi-accused jury trial for murder and attempted murder arising from a home invasion, the Crown sought to revisit a pre‑trial editing ruling that had excluded a portion of one accused’s police statement referencing a conversation with a co‑accused driver.

The Crown argued that subsequent cross‑examination created a material change in circumstances because the witness acknowledged misleading the driver about the purpose of the trip, making the excluded statement relevant as a prior inconsistent statement and to credibility.

The court held that the threshold for revisiting the ruling was met but declined to change the original decision.

Although the probative value of the statement had increased, its prejudicial effect against the co‑accused—against whom it remained inadmissible—continued to outweigh its value, particularly given the stage of the trial and fairness concerns.

The Crown’s application was therefore dismissed.

During a jury trial for murder arising from a home invasion, the accused sought to call a cardiologist to testify that a congenital heart condition could have caused hypoxia leading to confusion and impaired cognition during the incident.

The Crown opposed the evidence, arguing it lacked relevance, necessity, and proper qualification and risked misleading the jury.

Applying the Mohan framework as refined in White Burgess and Abbey, the court held the proposed expert testimony was logically relevant, necessary to explain the accused’s serious medical condition, and within the expert’s qualifications.

The court further concluded that any limitations in the opinion affected weight rather than admissibility and that the probative value of the defence-led evidence was not substantially outweighed by prejudice.

The expert evidence was therefore admitted for consideration by the jury.

During a jury trial for murder and attempted murder arising from a home invasion, the accused sought to call a cardiologist to provide expert evidence regarding congenital heart disease and its potential impact on mental functioning.

The Crown challenged the admissibility of the expert testimony, arguing issues of relevance, qualification, and reliability under the Mohan framework.

The court determined that a focused Mohan voir dire was required to clarify the precise opinion and assess the expert’s qualifications.

The judge held that the expert could testify on the voir dire only to identify the proposed opinion and establish qualifications, and that broader cross-examination was unnecessary for the admissibility determination.

During a jury trial for offences arising from a home invasion and robbery, the Crown sought to revisit a prior evidentiary ruling that had ordered references to the accused’s consultation with duty counsel removed from a police statement.

The Crown argued that subsequent testimony placing the reliability of the statement in issue increased the probative value of the fact that the accused had received legal advice before speaking to police.

The court reconsidered the issue under the residual discretion to exclude evidence where prejudicial effect outweighs probative value.

The judge held that the probative value of the consultation with counsel remained slight and that admitting the evidence would invite improper speculation about privileged communications.

The earlier ruling requiring redaction was therefore maintained.

In a jury trial for murder and attempted murder arising from a violent home invasion, the Crown challenged the sufficiency of a defence expert report disclosed under s. 657.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

The defence intended to call a cardiologist to testify about the accused’s congenital heart disease and the possible cognitive effects of exertion‑induced hypoxia, which could raise a reasonable doubt about the specific intent required for murder.

The court held that the report provided sufficient disclosure of the expert’s anticipated areas of evidence and the grounds underlying them, though it did not disclose the expert’s ultimate opinion regarding the accused’s symptoms at the time of the offences.

Considering the advanced stage and logistical constraints of the lengthy jury trial, the court declined to order further particulars or other remedial measures.

The issue of the expert’s qualifications to testify about hypoxia‑related cognitive effects was left to a focused Mohan voir dire.

During a murder and attempted murder trial arising from a home invasion, defence counsel alleged that Crown counsel improperly asked a co‑accused witness questions without a good faith basis during cross‑examination.

The defence argued that certain suggestions put to the witness regarding clothing worn during the offence and the cause of injuries to the surviving victim were speculative and inconsistent with the evidentiary record.

The court applied the Supreme Court of Canada’s guidance in R. v. Lyttle on the scope of permissible cross‑examination and the meaning of a good faith basis.

The judge concluded that the Crown’s questions were grounded in reasonable inference drawn from the available evidence.

Accordingly, the court declined to take any remedial steps.

In a jury trial for first degree murder and attempted murder arising from a home invasion, the accused brought applications for directed verdicts at the close of the Crown’s case.

They argued the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support inferences of planning and deliberation or the requisite intent for murder and attempted murder, and that the rule in Hodge’s Case required exclusion of those theories.

The court held that the governing test on a directed verdict motion is whether there is any evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably convict, and that the rule in Hodge’s Case does not apply at this stage.

The court found there was evidence capable of supporting inferences that the killing was planned and deliberate and that the accused participated with the necessary intent.

However, the Crown was barred from advancing second degree murder liability against the driver under the common unlawful purpose doctrine due to insufficient evidence of subjective foresight of death.

During a murder trial involving a home invasion, defence counsel for one of the co-accused sought to create a summary chart of a key Crown witness's testimony on an easel pad during cross-examination.

The Crown and counsel for another co-accused objected, arguing the chart was unnecessary, cumulative, and potentially misleading.

The court allowed the use of the demonstrative aid, finding that it was a useful organizational tool, met threshold reliability, and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by any trial management or trial fairness prejudice.

During a multi‑accused murder trial, the jury sent a note expressing concerns about safety after observing three men enter the courtroom whom they believed might be connected to the accused.

Defence counsel argued the note suggested potential racial bias or juror fear that could compromise impartiality and requested a jury inquiry.

The court conducted a focused inquiry questioning each juror individually about what they observed, whether they had concerns, whether race influenced their reaction, and whether they could remain impartial.

All jurors confirmed they had no concerns and could continue to decide the case solely on the evidence and legal instructions.

The court concluded the presumption of juror impartiality had not been rebutted and refused defence requests for a further inquiry.

In a joint trial for first-degree murder arising from a home invasion, the co-accused applied to redact portions of two videotaped police statements made by two of the accused.

The applicants argued that the statements contained inadmissible hearsay that was highly prejudicial to the non-makers.

The court applied the principles for editing co-accused statements, balancing the probative value of the narrative context against the prejudicial effect.

The court ordered the redaction of gratuitous police comments, irrelevant bad character evidence, and highly prejudicial post-offence conduct (wiping a coffee cup), but retained the core narrative descriptions of the events, holding that limiting instructions would adequately protect the co-accused.