Jennifer Campitelli

The Crown applied for an order permitting three designated undercover officers to testify remotely while wearing partial face masks during a preliminary hearing.

The Crown argued this was necessary due to the security risk posed by the ease of digital image capture in Zoom hearings, which could compromise the officers' anonymity and future undercover work in investigations involving criminal organizations.

Two defendants opposed, arguing existing protections were sufficient and that masks could hinder credibility assessment.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding the identified security risk was real and that the proposed measure balanced witness safety with the defendants' rights, noting that facial demeanor is of little value in preliminary hearings and that in-person witnesses during the pandemic often wear masks.

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking, brought an application for the disclosure of police disciplinary records relating to two officers involved in the investigation.

The court held that the disciplinary file of an officer who would not be called as a Crown witness was not first party disclosure and did not meet the 'likely relevant' threshold for third party records.

For the undercover officer who would testify, the court ordered the police to ascertain whether specific additional disciplinary records existed, but otherwise dismissed the application.

During a preliminary hearing, the court determined the voluntariness of two statements made by the defendant to police.

The first statement involved providing name and address during a search warrant execution.

The second statement was a videotaped interview at the police station following arrest and exercise of rights to counsel.

The defendant alleged she was distraught, lacked an operating mind, and was induced by promises that she could go home and rejoin her children if she provided information about drugs and a gun.

The court found both statements were made voluntarily and with an operating mind, rejecting the defendant's credibility and accepting the officer's evidence that no inducements were offered.

The defendant was charged with importing opium, possession for the purpose of trafficking in opium, and conspiracy to commit both offences.

The defendant brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging unreasonable delay in trial.

The total delay from arrest to scheduled trial was 20.5 months, exceeding the presumptive ceiling established in R v Jordan.

The court found no defence delay attributable to the defendant and rejected the Crown's arguments regarding exceptional circumstances and transitional exceptions.

The court concluded that the delay, particularly the Crown's failure to prioritize the case and complete disclosure in a timely manner, constituted a breach of the defendant's right to trial within a reasonable time.

The proceedings were stayed.