David Spence

The Crown applied under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for an order allowing the 18-year-old complainant in a sexual assault trial to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV).

The complainant, who is on the autism spectrum and experiences panic attacks, expressed fear of confronting the accused in person.

The defence opposed the application, arguing the complainant testified without issue at the preliminary inquiry and lacked medical documentation for her diagnoses.

The court granted the application, finding that the threshold for testimonial aids is whether it would facilitate a full and candid account, and concluded that CCTV testimony would enhance the truth-seeking function of the trial.

The offender was found guilty of sexually assaulting his intimate partner while she was asleep.

The Crown sought a sentence of 4 years, while the defence sought 2 to 2.5 years.

The court considered the serious nature of the offence, the offender's extensive criminal record, and the mitigating factor of a severe assault the offender suffered while in pre-sentence custody.

The court imposed a sentence of 3 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody and lockdowns.

The defendant, charged with multiple massage parlour robberies, applied to exclude evidence seized from his rented truck and room, alleging violations of his Charter rights.

The court found that while the initial search of the truck incident to arrest was lawful, the police seriously violated the defendant's s. 10(b) rights by delaying access to counsel and improperly questioning him about his address.

This unconstitutionally obtained information led to a warrantless entry into his room, violating s. 8, and the subsequent seizure of a distinctive leather jacket.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the jacket and evidence obtained from a later warrant search of the truck, but admitted the knife and phones found during the initial lawful search.

The accused appeared for a 90-day bail review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

He faced multiple sets of charges, primarily relating to committing indecent acts by masturbating in public, including in the presence of children, as well as breaching probation and bail conditions.

The accused had a significant criminal record and severe mental health issues, with a psychiatric assessment indicating a moderate-high risk of violent and sexual recidivism.

The court found that while the accused required mental health treatment, his escalating behaviour and the lack of a viable supervision plan meant his continued detention was necessary for the protection and safety of the public under the secondary ground.

The accused's detention was ordered to continue.

The offender pled guilty to sexual assault with a weapon and sexual assault against his former partner.

The offences involved non-consensual penetration with a bottle and touching while the victim was asleep, both of which were recorded on video.

The court determined the appropriate sentence was 33 months in custody.

After applying credit for pre-sentence custody, including enhanced credit for frequent lockdowns at the detention centre, the remaining sentence was four months.

Due to the risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and the offender's compromised immune system, the court further reduced the sentence to one day in custody followed by two years of probation.

The liquidator of LWP Capital Inc. brought a motion for declaratory relief regarding a dispute over a working capital adjustment following the sale of its special crops division to the respondent.

The applicant argued the respondent was estopped from disputing the preliminary closing working capital and that the dispute resolution mechanism in the Asset Purchase Agreement was not properly engaged.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no estoppel and holding that the dispute over the net realizable value of the inventory properly triggered the expert determination process under the agreement.

The plaintiffs in a proposed Ontario class action brought a motion seeking mandatory and restrictive injunctions against a class action administrator, class counsel in a certified Alberta class proceeding, and a defendant manufacturer.

The motion arose after an Alberta class action concerning allegedly defective oral contraceptives proceeded to certification and settlement discussions, while the Ontario action had been discontinued as a class proceeding and converted into a joinder action for claimants opting out of the Alberta case.

The plaintiffs objected to a letter sent by the Alberta action administrator suggesting that opt-out forms might have been submitted without the recipients’ knowledge.

The court criticized the language of the letter and the involvement of opposing counsel in its drafting but held that no actual harm had occurred and that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction over several of the actors.

The motion for injunctive relief was dismissed.