H. Black

The Crown brought a motion seeking to limit defence cross‑examination of a non‑accused witness regarding prior discreditable conduct and the underlying facts of home invasion charges for which the witness had been acquitted.

The defence opposed the limitation and sought an order preventing the witness from referring to the acquittal.

The court reviewed the broad right of an accused to cross‑examine ordinary witnesses as part of the right to make full answer and defence.

Distinguishing authorities dealing with cross‑examination of an accused, the court held that limitations applicable to accused persons do not apply to ordinary witnesses.

Balancing probative value against potential prejudice, the court permitted cross‑examination on the underlying facts of the acquitted charges and declined to prohibit the witness from mentioning the acquittal if it arose naturally.

During a criminal proceeding, the defence sought to qualify a forensic odontologist as an expert on the diagnosis, causation, and assessment of oral maxillofacial trauma.

The court applied the admissibility framework for expert evidence and concluded the proposed expert possessed sufficient expertise to testify about diagnosis of mandible injuries and the mechanism and pattern of jaw fractures.

However, the court found the expert lacked specialized education, research, and practical experience regarding causation, direction of force, or magnitude of force relating to jaw fractures.

Applying the gatekeeping function for expert evidence, the court also held that permitting opinions on causation would risk intruding on the ultimate issue for the jury and could improperly influence fact‑finding.

The expert was therefore limited to opinion evidence concerning diagnosis and injury patterns.

The Crown sought to qualify an oral maxillofacial surgeon to provide expert opinion evidence on the diagnosis, mechanism, causation, direction of force, and magnitude of force of the complainant's jaw fractures in an aggravated assault trial.

Following a voir dire, the court qualified the doctor to opine on the diagnosis and mechanism of the injuries based on his extensive clinical experience.

However, applying the Mohan and Abbey frameworks, the court held the doctor was not properly qualified to opine on causation, direction, or magnitude of force, as he lacked specialized training, research, or prior qualification in those specific forensic areas.

The applicant sought to re-litigate an abuse of process stay application after the original judge, who had dismissed the application but not yet provided reasons, was elevated to the Court of Appeal.

The applicant argued that only the trial judge has jurisdiction to hear a stay application.

The court held that a judge other than the trial judge has jurisdiction to hear a stay application under s. 24(1) of the Charter and Rule 27 of the Criminal Proceedings Rules.

The court also found that it had jurisdiction to continue the proceedings under s. 669.2(1) of the Criminal Code and that it was not in the interests of justice to re-litigate the identical application on the same record.

The motion was dismissed.