Jennifer Ann Comand

This ruling addresses two Crown applications in a Youth Criminal Justice Act case: one to admit evidence of prior discreditable conduct and another (Seaboyer application) to introduce evidence of other sexual activity.

The accused, J.B., a young person charged with sexual assault, was 13 at the time of the alleged assault, but the prior incidents occurred when he was 11 and thus legally a child incapable of forming criminal intent.

The court dismissed both applications, finding that the prejudicial effect of admitting evidence of acts committed when the accused was a child, and therefore lacked mens rea, outweighed its probative value.

The court emphasized the unique considerations for young persons and the significant time gap between the incidents.

This criminal trial involved multiple allegations of sexual assault and sexual interference against A.R., a substitute teacher.

The court meticulously assessed the credibility and reliability of each child complainant's testimony, noting significant internal and external inconsistencies and pervasive evidence of collusion among the witnesses, particularly influenced by one central complainant.

The defence did not call evidence.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt for all complainants, concluding that the evidence was unreliable and insufficient to support convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, or even simple assault.

A.R. was acquitted of all charges.

The offender, Robert Hearns, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the brutal, unprovoked attack on a vulnerable victim and the offender's substantial criminal record, and mitigating factors, such as the guilty plea and rehabilitation efforts.

The joint sentencing position of time served plus probation was accepted, largely influenced by the global COVID-19 pandemic and the increased risk of infection faced by inmates in custodial institutions.

The court took judicial notice of the pandemic's impact on sentencing principles, noting that it affects the fitness of sentence and may justify a departure from usual ranges, without granting a "get out of jail free" card.

The accused was charged with possessing Dilaudid and Fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and elected trial by judge of the Superior Court.

During a focus hearing for the preliminary inquiry, the Crown indicated it would not call the officer who made the arrest based on information from a confidential informant.

The defence sought to examine this officer regarding the lawfulness of the arrest and the grounds for arrest.

The Crown argued that a Dawson application was required and raised concerns about protecting the informer's privilege.

The court ruled on the scope and purpose of preliminary inquiries, the Crown's discretion not to call witnesses, the accused's right to call witnesses, the preliminary inquiry judge's authority to manage the hearing, and whether a Dawson application was necessary.

Six accused persons charged with offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and related Criminal Code firearms charges made dissimilar elections as to mode of trial.

Some accused elected trial by judge and jury, while others elected trial by provincial court judge.

Some accused subsequently re-elected without obtaining written Crown consent as required by statute.

The court addressed whether a justice presiding at a preliminary inquiry has residual jurisdiction to remedy or disregard recorded elections to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The court held that elections and re-elections as recorded must stand, and that a justice has no power to strike down or disregard a recorded election after the fact.