F. Temple

The accused, charged with second degree murder and aggravated assault, applied for the production of medical and counselling records of the Crown's key witness.

The applicant argued the records were necessary to make full answer and defence, as they related to the witness's credibility, reliability, and inconsistent statements.

The court applied the O'Connor and McNeil frameworks and found the records were likely relevant.

After reviewing the records, the court ordered partial production subject to redactions and strict conditions to balance the accused's right to make full answer and defence with the witness's privacy interests.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of statements made by the accused, Terrence Barrett, who is charged with second-degree murder and aggravated assault.

The Crown sought to admit various utterances and two videotaped statements made to police.

The defence argued that the statements were involuntary due to Barrett's medical and mental state and oppressive conditions, and that his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was infringed.

The court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements were voluntary and that Barrett's Charter rights were not infringed.

Consequently, the Crown's application to admit the statements was granted, and the defence application to exclude them was dismissed.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder and aggravated assault, brought an application to sit at counsel table rather than in the prisoner's dock during his trial.

The defence argued that sitting in the dock carried a stigma and that sitting at counsel table would facilitate communication.

The Crown opposed, citing security concerns and the lack of exceptional circumstances.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the customary position is in the dock, the accused failed to show exceptional circumstances, and there were valid security concerns given his criminal record and outstanding charges for violent offences in custody.

Two young persons charged with street racing causing death, street racing causing bodily harm, dangerous driving causing death, and dangerous driving causing bodily harm brought applications under section 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms alleging unreasonable delay in trial.

The charges arose from a fatal motor vehicle collision on April 14, 2014.

The information was sworn on May 13, 2014, with trial anticipated to conclude on October 5, 2016, representing a total delay of 28.75 months.

The court applied the framework established in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, which created presumptive ceilings of 18 months for provincial courts.

The court found that while the delay exceeded the presumptive ceiling, it was justified by exceptional circumstances, including an unforeseen adjournment request by co-accused's counsel and the transitional nature of the case.

The court also considered the case under the pre-Jordan Morin framework and found the delay was not unreasonable in that context either.

The defendant, Rajeev Henry Balendra, brought a motion for a directed verdict on four counts of an indictment: fraudulent possession of credit card data, conspiracy to commit fraud, possession of identity information with intent to commit an indictable offence, and possession of forged credit cards.

The Crown presented circumstantial evidence, including a USB drive with over 2,000 credit card numbers found on the accused, counterfeit driver's licenses, and financial institution affidavits detailing losses.

The court applied the test for a directed verdict, determining whether sufficient evidence existed for a jury, properly instructed, to convict.

The court found ample evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer the accused's knowledge and intent, satisfying the elements of all remaining counts.

The motion for a directed verdict was dismissed.

The defendant applied to exclude evidence obtained from searches of a USB drive and a vehicle, alleging a breach of his s. 8 Charter right against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the USB drive but not the vehicle.

The search of the USB drive was deemed a lawful search incident to arrest, as it was conducted for a valid purpose connected to the arrest and was reasonable in scope.

The court also determined that a subsequent review and printing of the USB drive's contents did not constitute a new search.

Consequently, the application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal on first degree murder for the stabbing death of Milan Segota, with the defence conceding second degree murder.

The Crown also sought committal on aggravated assault for injuries to Aimee Novak, with the defence conceding assault with a weapon.

The court examined whether circumstantial evidence supported inferences of planning and deliberation necessary for first degree murder.

The court found insufficient evidence of planning and deliberation, distinguishing the case from situations involving armed ambush or premeditated knife acquisition.

The defendant was committed to stand trial on second degree murder and aggravated assault.

Following a jury conviction for sexual assault, the court imposed sentence for an offence involving sexual intercourse with an adult complainant who was significantly incapacitated by alcohol and/or drugs.

The court determined that the jury’s verdict necessarily implied that sexual intercourse occurred but found the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender administered a drug to facilitate the assault.

The evidence established that the offender took advantage of a vulnerable and intoxicated complainant and escorted her from a bar to his home where the assault occurred.

Aggravating factors included the complainant’s incapacitation, the serious and lasting emotional harm caused, and the offender’s exploitation of vulnerability.

Balancing mitigating factors including community contributions and health issues, the court imposed a 30‑month penitentiary sentence with mandatory DNA, weapons prohibition, and sex offender registration orders.