Jill A. Prenger

The accused brought a Stage 2 third‑party records application seeking production of counselling records of two complainants following a Stage 1 finding of likely relevance under the O’Connor framework.

After reviewing the records, the court conducted the balancing analysis between the accused’s right to make full answer and defence and the privacy interests of the complainants.

The court found no indication that the counselling process revived, refreshed, or shaped the complainants’ memories of the alleged abuse.

As the records disclosed no basis to support the defence theory arising from the preliminary hearing testimony, production was refused.

The counselling records were not ordered produced to the accused.

Sentencing decision for invitation to sexual touching contrary to s. 152 of the Criminal Code.

The offender, a 22-year-old skate guard, engaged in sexually explicit communications with a 13-year-old girl and sent her an explicit image.

The defence challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum 14-day sentence under s. 152, arguing it constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

The court rejected the Charter challenge and imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of 14 days incarceration, followed by 12 months probation with conditions including no contact, distance restrictions, and counselling requirements.

A DNA order and 10-year SOIRA order were also imposed.

The accused, a Toronto police officer, was charged with criminal harassment and assault on the basis of a private complaint laid in December 2010.

The accused brought an application to stay the charges pursuant to s.11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the grounds of unreasonable delay.

The Crown's office had delayed assigning an outside Crown to the case due to a conflict of interest, and the complainant had refused to provide disclosure until after her own trial was completed.

The total delay from the laying of the information to the scheduled trial date was approximately 35 months, with the court attributing 23 months of that delay to the state.

The court found that the delay was unreasonable and stayed the charges.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault and mischief.

The Crown sought to introduce statements she made to police.

The accused argued the statements were involuntary due to an atmosphere of oppression and sought their exclusion under s. 24(2) of the Charter due to a conceded breach of her s. 10(b) right to counsel.

The court found the statements were voluntary.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the police failure to ensure the highly intoxicated accused understood her rights to counsel was a serious breach that significantly impacted her Charter-protected interests.

The statements were excluded under s. 24(2).

The accused was charged with multiple firearm offences after police stopped a vehicle in which he was a passenger and found a loaded handgun hidden in a sock in the seat pouch in front of him.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the presence of the accused's DNA on the sock.

The court found that while the circumstances were suspicious, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control of the firearm, as there was no direct evidence connecting him to the gun and alternative explanations for the DNA transfer could not be excluded.

All charges were dismissed.

The accused brought an application to vary his bail conditions following a charge of assault against his spouse.

The existing recognizance required him to reside with a surety and have no direct contact with the complainant.

Evidence was presented that the complainant, through a social worker and interpreter, expressed that she did not fear for her safety and wanted the accused to return to the matrimonial home while she was hospitalized following a mental health crisis.

Despite Crown opposition citing concerns about the relationship history and the pending trial, the court concluded that resolving the bail conditions would facilitate family planning and that appropriate safeguards remained through hospital discharge decisions and potential sentencing conditions.

The court amended the recognizance to remove several conditions, allowing the accused to return to the matrimonial home pending trial.