D. Stein

This ruling addresses the continuation of an ongoing jury trial for second-degree murder amidst the rapid spread of the Omicron variant of COVID-19.

Despite a joint submission from the Crown and defence to continue the trial, the court exercised its discretion to adjourn the proceedings.

The judge balanced the accused's right to an expeditious and fair trial against the paramount health and safety concerns for all courtroom participants, including jurors, counsel, staff, and the accused's family.

The court took judicial notice of the Omicron variant's significantly increased transmissibility and its impact on vaccine effectiveness, noting the high likelihood of trial disruptions due to exposures or infections.

The trial was adjourned until February 7, 2022, with a reassessment meeting scheduled for January 31, 2022.

Applicants charged with Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences related to possession and sale of cannabis brought a joint application challenging the constitutionality of sections 5(2) and 4 of the CDSA in combination with the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations.

The applicants argued the provisions violated sections 7, 15, and 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed the application, finding no violations of the Charter.

The court held that the ACMPR regime provided reasonable access to medical cannabis through multiple avenues and did not arbitrarily deprive applicants of liberty, discriminate against disabled persons or homeless individuals, or infringe freedom of expression.

The accused, charged with offences related to OHIP billing fraud and medical marijuana, brought a motion to adjourn their trial scheduled for September 11, 2017.

The motion was based on the Crown's late notice, provided on August 8, 2017, of its intention to call a new expert witness without providing a report or a specific description of the proposed expertise.

The court found that the Crown failed to comply with the expert witness notice requirements under s. 657.3 of the Criminal Code.

To protect the accused's right to make full answer and defence, the court granted the adjournment.