Fred Temple

This supplementary ruling on a bail application for Peter Vanderveen finalized the bail conditions and surety arrangements.

Bail was set at $100,000 with no deposit, supported by three sureties.

The conditions included strict residency requirements, restrictions on movement, prohibitions on firearms and ammunition, mandatory attendance at a Bail Compliance Program, geographical limitations to Ontario, no-contact orders with specified individuals, and continuous GPS monitoring by Recovery Science Corporation at the applicant's expense.

The Crown brought an application to relitigate two prior evidentiary rulings made during an initial trial that ended in a mistrial.

The rulings concerned the admissibility of a witness's statement and the scope of cross-examination regarding an alleged attempt to influence testimony.

Applying s. 653.1 of the Criminal Code and the "interests of justice" factors from R. v. Victoria, the court found that the prior rulings were not clearly wrong and that no new evidence or arguments were presented to justify relitigation.

The application was dismissed, affirming the binding nature of the previous evidentiary decisions for the re-trial.

The Crown applied for certiorari with mandamus in aid, seeking to compel a preliminary inquiry judge to commit the accused, Terrence Barrett, for first-degree murder.

The preliminary inquiry judge had committed Barrett for second-degree murder and aggravated assault, but declined to commit for first-degree murder, finding insufficient evidence of planning and deliberation.

The Superior Court reviewed the preliminary inquiry judge's limited weighing of circumstantial evidence, concluding that she had properly instructed herself on the law and did not commit any jurisdictional error by finding the evidence insufficient to support planning and deliberation.

The Crown's application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with failing or refusing to comply with an Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand.

During trial, the accused revealed he had made notes of events the day following his involvement with the officer and had reviewed them prior to testifying.

The Crown sought production of the notes.

The defence objected on the basis of litigation privilege.

The court held that while the notes were initially protected by litigation privilege as they were made in anticipation of litigation, the accused waived that privilege by using the notes to refresh his memory prior to testifying.

The court ordered production of the notes to the Crown.