The applicant, Naoum Abi-Samra, sought an order to sever count one (sexual assault of a fellow teacher in 2009) from counts two through seven (sexual assault and sexual interference of students in 2013-2016).
The court considered the risk of prejudice to the applicant, the factual and legal nexus between counts, the applicant's intention to testify on one count but not others, the possibility of inconsistent verdicts, multiplicity of proceedings, similar fact evidence, and the right to be tried within a reasonable time.
The court found significant differences between count one and the other counts, particularly regarding the complainant's status (adult teacher vs. underage students) and the context of the incidents.
The applicant's objective intention to testify on count one due to a prior mediation, but not necessarily on the others, was a strong factor.
The court was not satisfied that the charges were sufficiently similar to support a similar fact evidence application.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the significant risk of prejudice to the applicant outweighed the benefits of a joint trial, and severance was required in the interests of justice.