Elizabeth Ferris

The applicant, charged with fraud over $5000, brought a motion for a stay of proceedings alleging a violation of her right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay was 38.4 months.

The court deducted 8.25 months as defence delay due to implicit waiver during protracted resolution discussions, and a further 1.15 months for discrete exceptional circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The remaining delay fell below the 30-month ceiling and was found to be reasonable, as the applicant took no meaningful steps to expedite the proceedings.

The application was dismissed.

The defendants were charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation of a young person who stayed at their residence intermittently over several years.

The Crown alleged that the defendants were in a position of trust or authority towards the complainant.

The court found the complainant's testimony to be unreliable and lacking credibility due to inconsistencies, admitted manipulation, and expressed malice towards the defendants.

The court concluded that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants were in a position of trust or authority, or that the sexual activity was non-consensual.

Both defendants were found not guilty on all counts.

The Crown brought a pretrial application to determine the voluntariness of videotaped statements made by two accused persons during separate police interviews following their arrests for sexual assault and sexual exploitation.

The court applied the Oickle framework, considering whether the statements were induced by threats or promises, oppressive conditions, lack of an operating mind, or police trickery.

The court found that both accused possessed operating minds, were not subjected to oppression or improper inducements, and voluntarily chose to speak to the police.

The statements were ruled voluntary and admissible at trial.

The accused, Robert Wissink, brought a pre-trial application seeking a declaration that a search and seizure violated his Charter rights under sections 8 and 7, and an order to exclude evidence under section 24(2).

The application challenged the facial validity of the search warrant, arguing the Information to Obtain Search Warrant (ITO) lacked sufficient information, particularly regarding the currency of the evidence.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the ITO provided reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant, and that the passage of time did not render the information stale given the nature of child pornography offenses and electronic evidence.

No Charter breaches were found.

The accused was charged with eight counts arising from an incident involving his ex-partner: assault, forcible entry, uttering threats of death, possession of a weapon, mischief, criminal harassment, and two breaches of recognizance.

The Crown's case rested entirely on the testimony of the complainant.

The central issue was whether the Crown had established the identity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

The trial judge found that identity was proven through the complainant's repeated references to the accused by name, corroborated by the existence of a bail order acknowledging the accused's relationship to the complainant and the residence in question.

The judge acquitted on counts three (death threat), six (criminal harassment), and seven (residence breach) due to insufficient evidence, but convicted on counts one (assault), two (forcible entry), four (weapon possession), five (mischief), and eight (curfew breach).