Geoffrey Michael Read

This decision addresses the admissibility of evidence under s. 276 of the Criminal Code concerning a complainant's prior sexual activity and a purported recantation of a previous sexual assault allegation against her biological father.

The court found that the evidence of the complainant's prior allegation and recantation is admissible because it is relevant to the complainant's credibility and has significant probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice.

The ruling clarifies the application of the twin myths prohibition, the criteria for admissibility under s. 276(2), and the balancing of interests under s. 276(3), emphasizing the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

The applicant, charged with possessing and accessing child pornography, brought a motion to exclude evidence obtained through a production order and search warrant, alleging breaches of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The applicant argued the initial receipt of the IP address constituted a warrantless search, the search warrant lacked evidential basis, and the search was conducted unreasonably as a copy of the warrant was not provided.

The court dismissed the application, finding the passive receipt of an IP address from the National Child Exploitation Crime Centre was not a search, the production order and search warrant were properly issued, and the search was conducted reasonably under the applicable law at the time.

This criminal trial concerned charges of sexual assault and sexual interference against the accused, involving his young daughter.

The alleged incidents occurred in 2017, with disclosure made approximately five years later.

The defence challenged the complainant's credibility, citing the delay in disclosure and a potential motive to fabricate linked to family court proceedings.

The court found the complainant credible and reliable, dismissing the defence's challenges.

The accused's denials were rejected due to inconsistencies with his prior guilty plea for corrupting a child, which was admitted as similar fact evidence.

The court convicted the accused on two of the four alleged incidents (sexual assault and sexual interference for the second and fourth incidents), finding the elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt, while acquitting on the other two due to insufficient reliability or certainty regarding specific details.

The Crown applied under s. 715.1(1) of the Criminal Code to admit a young complainant's video-recorded statement made five years after the alleged sexual offences.

The defence argued the delay was unreasonable, especially given an earlier "golden opportunity" for disclosure.

The court granted the application, finding the statement was made within a reasonable time, considering the complainant's age, the nature of the abuse, and the chaotic circumstances of the earlier police interview.

The court emphasized a holistic, case-specific analysis for "reasonable time" and rejected the "golden opportunity" argument as determinative.

A discrete portion of the statement was redacted.

The Crown applied to admit extrinsic evidence of the respondent's prior discreditable conduct for a similar fact purpose in a sexual offence trial.

The respondent was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against his young daughter.

The extrinsic evidence related to a prior guilty plea for corrupting a child, where the respondent was found masturbating near the sleeping complainant.

The court found that the probative value of the extrinsic evidence, demonstrating a situation-specific propensity for sexual activity near the complainant in her bedroom while she slept, outweighed its prejudicial effect, given the strong similarities in circumstances and temporal proximity.

The application was granted with limitations on the scope of evidence.

Scott Watson was convicted of careless driving causing death (s. 130(3) HTA) and careless driving simpliciter (s. 130(1) HTA) after a trial.

The court considered sentencing principles, legislative intent behind the new careless driving provisions, and the proportionality of the sentence.

Despite the defendant's health issues and belated expression of remorse, the court found his driving behaviour severely lacking and imposed a custodial sentence and a lengthy driving suspension, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence.

The defendant, Scott Watson, was found guilty of careless driving causing death and careless driving causing bodily harm under the Highway Traffic Act.

The trial, conducted via Zoom, involved a collision where the defendant's motorcycle struck two elderly pedestrians, one fatally, who were jaywalking.

The court found the defendant was speeding, failed to maintain proper situational awareness, and did not react prudently, concluding his actions constituted a lack of reasonable care and attention, despite the unexpected nature of the pedestrians' crossing.

Two young persons charged with assault causing bodily harm (one also charged with assault with a weapon) brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging their right to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed.

The charges arose from an incident on July 30, 2011.

The first trial date was set for December 2012 but was adjourned when the Crown disclosed on the eve of trial that a surveillance videotape had been misplaced by police.

A second trial date was scheduled for November 2013.

The court found that the total delay of 27.5 months, with 17 months attributable to Crown disclosure failures and institutional resource limitations, constituted an unreasonable delay.

The court granted a stay of proceedings as the minimal remedy for the section 11(b) breach.