Jeffrey Manishen

The applicant, a police officer charged with obstructing justice and fabricating evidence, sought a stay of proceedings alleging a breach of solicitor-client privilege.

During the investigation, her seized cell phone revealed text messages with a lawyer retained by the police association.

The court found the investigators' review and subsequent disclosure of these messages to co-accused was inadvertent and minimal.

Applying the tests from Regan and O'Connor, the court concluded there was no prejudice to the applicant's right to a fair trial and dismissed the application for a stay.

The applicant, a police officer charged with fabricating evidence and obstructing justice, was severed from her co-accused.

Prior to her own trial, the Crown subpoenaed her to testify at the trial of her co-accused.

The applicant brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing that compelling her to testify breached her right to remain silent and constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the predominant purpose of calling her was not to obtain incriminating evidence for her own trial, and that any prejudice was cured by the statutory protections against derivative use of compelled testimony under section 13 of the Charter and section 5 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The accused, a police officer, was committed to stand trial on charges of obstructing justice and fabricating evidence, but discharged on two other counts of fabricating evidence following a preliminary inquiry.

The Crown subsequently added two counts of forgery to the indictment based on the same evidence, pursuant to section 574(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused brought an application to quash the two new counts.

The court dismissed the application regarding one count, finding sufficient evidence of a false notebook entry, but granted the application to quash the second count, concluding that the evidence regarding the condition of a Provincial Offence Notice was too speculative to support a forgery charge.

During long‑term offender sentencing proceedings, the defence sought to qualify a psychotherapist as an expert in the risk assessment of sexual offenders.

The proposed expert had administered certain assessment tools and prepared reports concerning the accused’s treatment and recidivism risk.

The court applied the admissibility criteria for expert evidence from R. v. Mohan and examined the witness’s qualifications, training, and professional background.

The judge concluded that the witness lacked sufficient training and expertise in risk assessment methodology to qualify as an expert in that field.

The witness was permitted to testify about treatment methods and testing used in therapy but was prohibited from providing opinion evidence on the accused’s risk of sexual recidivism.