Deanna Cristovao

The Applicant, F.W., facing a sexual assault charge, brought a s. 276 application to introduce "other sexual activity" (OSA) evidence of the complainant, M.M., related to DNA evidence, capacity to consent, and inconsistencies in her statement.

The court, applying the s. 276 regime, balanced the probative value against the prejudice.

The court allowed limited cross-examination of the complainant regarding sexual activity at the nightclub/vicinity on the night of the incident and permitted examination of Crown witness S.R. and the Applicant regarding their sexual activity with the complainant, finding significant probative value for the defence's issues of consent and DNA explanation, which outweighed the prejudice.

The accused, Abdullah Hotaki, charged with sexual assault and assault, brought a Charter s. 11(b) motion for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the laying of the information to the anticipated end of trial was 18 months and 25 days, exceeding the 18-month Jordan ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court found the delay was primarily caused by the Crown's failure to provide core disclosure promptly, despite diligent efforts by defence counsel.

The Crown's arguments regarding implied waiver and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic were rejected as insufficient to justify the delay.

A stay of proceedings was entered on all counts.

The applicant, Herbert Meawasige, brought a motion to stay charges of assault, assault with a weapon, and three counts of failing to comply with probation, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The trial was expected to conclude 18 months and 22 days after his charge, exceeding the presumptive ceiling set by R. v. Jordan.

The court found minimal defence delay and no evidence of the Crown's efforts to mitigate the delay, including during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Consequently, the motion was granted, and the charges were stayed.

Christopher Navas pleaded guilty to failing to comply with a release order.

The Crown sought a conditional discharge with probation and a DNA order, while the defence argued for an absolute discharge and opposed the DNA order.

The court granted an absolute discharge, finding that Mr. Navas's offending behaviour was linked to significant mental health challenges and that he had made exemplary progress in rehabilitation, rendering a probation order unnecessary and a longer record retention period disproportionate.

The court also declined to impose a DNA order, considering the minor nature of the breach, the offender's lack of prior criminal record, and his rehabilitation efforts.