Frank Horn

The hospital restricted the accused's liberty after he relapsed into severe substance abuse, spending $12,000 on drugs in two days and presenting in a drug-induced psychotic state.

The hospital sought a review of the restriction of liberty and a variance to the accused's disposition to allow him to reside in Ottawa or Cornwall and attend a residential treatment program.

The Ontario Review Board found the restriction of liberty was necessary, appropriate, and the least onerous measure to ensure public safety and the accused's rehabilitation.

The Board also granted the requested variance.

The applicant, an American citizen facing charges of sexual assault of a minor in Wisconsin, sought judicial interim release pending extradition proceedings.

The court found that the reverse onus applied as the applicant was not ordinarily resident in Canada.

The proposed surety was deemed inadequate due to a lack of understanding of the charges, an unrealistic supervision plan, and an inability to post a sufficient bond.

Given the applicant's history of fleeing jurisdiction and the serious nature of the charges, the court concluded that detention was necessary on the primary grounds to ensure his attendance in court.

Bail was denied.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial subject to a publication ban, the court convicted the accused of threatening death and sexual assault arising from sexual activity at a cottage on an island.

The central issue was whether the complainant's apparent participation was negated because she submitted after the accused threatened to kill her.

Applying the W.D. framework, the court rejected the accused's account, found corroborative support for the complainant's evidence in surrounding witnesses and physical circumstances, and held that consent was vitiated under s. 265(3)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The court also ruled that the 911 recording was not admissible for the truth of its contents under the principled hearsay exception, but was admissible as evidence of post-offence demeanour.

Jason Poirier applied to quash a search warrant, arguing that an unrecorded conversation between the Justice of the Peace and the detective prior to the warrant's re-submission compromised the judicial process.

The court found that the absence of a record of this interaction, coupled with inconsistencies between the detective's recollection and the warrant amendments, prevented a reliable review of the Justice of the Peace's fairness and impartiality.

Consequently, the Crown failed to meet its burden of establishing the warrant's validity, and the search warrant was quashed.