Deirdre Anne Bryant

The Crown brought an application under section 715.1 of the Criminal Code for the admission of a video statement from a child complainant in a sexual assault and sexual interference case.

The defence challenged the admissibility, arguing the statement was not made within a "reasonable time" due to a four-year delay between the alleged incident and disclosure.

The court applied a six-factor test to assess the reasonableness of the delay, considering the child's age, relationship to the accused, nature of the offence, developmental stages, and potential external influences.

The court found the delay reasonable, noting that children often delay reporting such incidents and that the delay did not negatively impact the complainant's ability to recall.

The video statement was deemed admissible.

In a criminal trial for historical sexual assault, the court assessed the reliability of the complainant's testimony.

While the complainant was found credible, concerns regarding the reliability of her memory, including admitted weaknesses, haziness, and susceptibility to suggestion during initial disclosure, raised a reasonable doubt.

The defendant's mid-trial abscondment did not alter the assessment.

The Crown failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal on all counts.

The Crown applied for orders allowing a police witness to testify remotely and the accused, Y.A., to attend a preliminary inquiry remotely via videoconference due to the temporary suspension of in-person proceedings amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

Y.A. opposed, arguing lack of jurisdiction and that remote attendance would impact the fairness of the proceedings.

The court granted both applications, finding jurisdiction under sections 714.1, 715.25, and 715.23 of the Criminal Code.

The judge concluded that remote proceedings would serve the proper administration of justice, ensure fair and efficient proceedings, and enhance access to justice, without prejudicing the accused, especially given the significant delays already incurred.

The appellant appealed a conviction for sexual interference arising from allegations that he touched a thirteen-year-old household member's breasts and vagina during apparent horseplay.

The appeal alleged misapprehension of the evidence, improper use of blanket-lifting evidence, and error in concluding the conduct met the elements of sexual interference and sexual assault.

The court held the trial judge's inference about visibility during the touching was supported by the evidence, the blanket-lifting incident was admissible and relevant to sexual purpose, and the touching was properly found to be sexual in nature.

The conviction appeal was dismissed and the custodial sentence was ordered into effect.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual touching and making child pornography involving his partner's 11-year-old child.

The Crown sought a total sentence of 30 months, while the accused argued for 12 to 18 months and challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory consecutive sentencing provision under s. 718.3(7) of the Criminal Code, claiming it violated s. 12 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the Charter challenge, finding that a 30-month sentence was proportionate given the serious breach of trust and harm caused to the child.

The accused was sentenced to 18 months for sexual touching and 12 months consecutive for making child pornography.

The defendant was charged with four counts arising from an altercation with police on August 28, 2016: two counts of assault with intent to resist lawful arrest, one count of resisting arrest, and one count of obstructing a police officer.

The Crown alleged the police lawfully entered the defendant's home in response to a 911 call reporting a domestic dispute and that the defendant assaulted and resisted the officers.

The defendant argued the police exceeded their lawful authority by forcibly entering his home without a warrant and without reasonable grounds to believe anyone's life or safety was in danger.

The court found the police did not have lawful authority to enter the home and acquitted the defendant on all counts.

A self-represented litigant brought a private complaint alleging that the president and counsel of the Real Estate Council of Ontario committed obstruction of justice, fabrication of evidence, and criminal harassment between June 2004 and June 2012.

The complaint arose from a discipline proceeding that resulted in the revocation of the applicant's real estate licence.

The pre-enquete hearing was held over multiple dates spanning nearly two years.

The court found that no prima facie case had been established against either respondent on any of the alleged offences.

The application was dismissed.