Earl Glasner

D.H., charged with sexual assault, brought an application seeking an order to compel the Crown to obtain and review an RCMP investigative file related to a third party (W.B.) who was found with drugs in the complainant's apartment.

D.H. argued the file was relevant to the complainant's character and credibility.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the RCMP file constituted a third-party record, not subject to the Crown's first-party disclosure duty (Stinchecombe).

The proper procedure for obtaining such records is an O'Connor application, which requires the defence to subpoena the records directly from the third party.

The court also found the material unlikely to be relevant to the complainant's credibility, deeming the request a "fishing expedition."

Nathaniel McLaughlin was charged with aggravated assault on a 13-month-old child, Khalaiya Ross.

The judge-alone trial heard evidence from police, EMS, Ms. Ross (the child's mother), and five medical specialists.

The medical evidence overwhelmingly indicated severe, non-accidental trauma inconsistent with the accused's account of an accidental fall.

The court found the accused's statements inconsistent and his alternative theories speculative.

The judge concluded that the injuries occurred while the child was in the accused's sole care, and found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant brought a third party records application seeking production of therapeutic and counselling records relating to the complainant in a human trafficking prosecution.

The applicant sought to access records from the complainant's psychiatrist, hospital, and mental health treatment facility covering the period between the complainant's arrest in April 2015 and her police interview in April 2016.

The applicant argued the records were necessary to challenge the complainant's credibility and reliability, contending she had fabricated allegations during therapy to escape prosecution.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant had failed to establish that the records were likely relevant to any issue at trial or to the competence of the witness.

The Crown applied for an order permitting a complainant in a human trafficking case to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV) from outside the courtroom, and to have a Human Trafficking Advocate sit close to her during testimony.

The accused opposed both aspects of the application.

The court granted the CCTV order but denied the request for the advocate's close presence.

The decision addresses the evidentiary threshold under the amended Section 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code, which changed from a "necessity" test to a "facilitate" test, and considers what evidence is required to support such applications.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, aggravated assault, and obstructing justice arising from a three-way sexual encounter.

The Crown alleged the accused forced non-consensual sex, failed to disclose his HIV status, and offered a bribe to the complainant.

The court found the sexual encounter was consensual and the bribery allegations were fabricated.

Applying the Mabior framework, the court held that the accused's failure to disclose his HIV status did not vitiate consent because he used a condom and had an undetectably low viral load at the time, meaning there was no realistic possibility of transmission.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

In a mid-trial application under s. 276.1 of the Criminal Code, the accused sought to cross-examine the complainant and another witness about prior unprotected sexual activity to support an argument that fraud did not vitiate consent.

The court held that reframing the proposed evidence as going to risk tolerance rather than consent did not avoid the prohibition on the prohibited inferences associated with prior sexual conduct.

The evidence remained inadmissible because its probative value depended on impermissible reasoning tied to the twin myths.

The court permitted only conventional impeachment through prior inconsistent statements or where the complainant voluntarily raised the subject in her testimony.

The appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking in a restricted drug, arguing that ignorance of subordinate legislation could serve as an excuse or a defence of due diligence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, relying on the reasons provided in the concurrent appeal of the appellant's accomplice, Molis v. The Queen.

The appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking in a restricted drug, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of intercepted private communications.

The appellant contended there was no evidence upon which the authorizing judge could have granted the wiretap authorization.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed this ground of appeal, holding that even if such an authorization is reviewable by a trial judge, the Court would not interfere with the concurrent findings that there was some evidence to support the authorization.