Harald Mattson

The Crown applied for an order under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code permitting the alleged victim to testify via closed-circuit remote testimony outside the courtroom.

The accused faced charges of attempted murder and criminal harassment.

The court granted the application, finding that the threshold of necessity had been met based on evidence of the victim's severe trauma, anxiety, and fear resulting from the violent attack and preceding harassment.

The court considered the victim's age, the nature of the offences, the relationship between the parties, and the victim's emotional state as demonstrated through testimony from the investigating officer and a victim services counselor.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while his ability to do so was impaired by a drug, contrary to section 253 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown established that the defendant drove erratically after voluntarily consuming Alprazolam (Xanax), a non-prescribed anti-anxiety drug obtained from a friend, in addition to his prescribed Clonazepam.

The defendant argued he had developed tolerance to his prescribed medication over several years and did not intend to drive while impaired.

The court found that the defendant's voluntary ingestion of the non-prescribed drug, combined with his prior knowledge of its effects and warnings against mixing drugs, established the requisite mens rea for the offence.

The defendant was found guilty.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and criminal harassment following an incident on September 23, 2013, in Waterloo, Ontario.

The Crown alleged that the accused stabbed the victim with a knife, wounding her on the neck, with the specific intent to kill her.

The accused had previously engaged in a controlling relationship with the victim, using self-harm as a manipulation tactic.

After the victim ended the relationship, the accused sent numerous threatening emails from China detailing a plan to kill the victim and then commit suicide.

The accused was convicted of attempted murder after the court found that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused acted with the specific intent to kill the victim.

The criminal harassment charge was resolved by guilty plea.

The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario held a pre-hearing teleconference regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of Stampede Ranch (Guelph) Inc. The Board ordered the licensee to disclose its witness list and evidence summaries to the Registrar 10 days before the scheduled hearing, and ordered the Registrar to complete any further disclosure within the same timeframe.

The Crown appealed the acquittals of three accused charged with driving while disqualified.

The accused had signed standard pre-printed prohibition orders that failed to set out the full penal consequences of driving while disqualified, as required by s. 260(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown argued that the presumption of regularity should apply to cure the defective forms.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that the presumption of regularity did not apply because the written forms were explicitly deficient and there was no reason to presume the court clerk went beyond the written terms when explaining the orders.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the respondent's liquor licence.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts admitting that drunken patrons were permitted on the licensed premises, in violation of s. 45(1) of O. Reg. 719/90.

Based on a Joint Submission on Disposition, the Board ordered a 15-day suspension of the respondent's liquor licence.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's order staying the respondent's second-degree murder trial for abuse of process and unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The trial judge had found over 150 Charter breaches by police and Crown counsel.

On appeal, the respondent conceded the trial judge's findings were unsupportable but argued the stay should be upheld because her trial counsel's incompetence caused the delay.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, finding no evidence the respondent was unaware of her counsel's strategy, and set aside the stay of proceedings and costs order, directing a new trial.

Criminal appeals from an order setting aside directed acquittals and directing a new trial on charges including conspiracy to obstruct justice, obstruction of justice, and corruptly accepting money.

A key prosecution witness testified at the preliminary inquiry, later recanted significant portions of her evidence, and then married one appellant before trial, rendering her incompetent for the Crown under the common law spousal incompetency rule preserved by s. 4 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The Court held that the common law rule should not be modified on these facts and that s. 715 of the Criminal Code did not authorize admission of the preliminary inquiry transcript.

However, the majority held that the former testimony was admissible at common law under the principled hearsay exception because necessity and threshold reliability were established, and the resulting unfairness or prejudice did not outweigh its probative value.

The appeals were dismissed and the new trial order was affirmed.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal that set aside a stay of proceedings and remitted the matter to trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, applying the principles from R. v. Morin.

The Court held that there was no unreasonable delay within the meaning of s. 11(b) of the Charter and ordered that the trial be expedited.