Julian Royston Edmund Whitten

The Crown sought to call Dr. Saumil Dholakia, a treating psychiatrist, as a participant expert to provide opinion evidence regarding his assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of the accused Hue Lam during the period from February 8 to September 30, 2022.

The defence opposed the admission of Dr. Dholakia's opinion evidence, arguing that if qualified as an expert, the jury would improperly compare his opinions with those of Dr. Zeynep Selaman, a litigation expert retained by the defence.

The court ruled that Dr. Dholakia could testify as a participant expert and provide opinion evidence within defined parameters, finding that the probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by prejudicial effects and that appropriate jury instructions could address defence concerns.

The court ruled on the admissibility of expert psychiatric evidence and hospital records in a first-degree murder trial involving two sisters charged with killing their mother.

The accused sought to introduce seven hospital records as business records and expert opinion evidence from a forensic psychiatrist regarding the accused's mental health condition, the effects of chronic abuse, and related psychiatric concepts.

The Crown opposed both applications on grounds of hearsay, prejudicial effect, and necessity.

The court admitted the hospital records as business records and qualified the expert to provide opinion evidence on psychiatric assessment, diagnosis, causes, and impacts of mental disorders, while restricting the expert from opining on the specific conduct of the accused.

The court ruled on whether the defences of self-defence and provocation should be put to the jury in a case where two sisters admitted to killing their elderly mother.

The accused claimed they acted in self-defence based on a lifetime of physical and verbal abuse, which escalated in the week preceding the killing.

The court found an air of reality to the self-defence defence for both accused, considering the chronic abuse, the accused's cultural background, their mental health conditions, and the modified objective test applicable to self-defence.

The court rejected the provocation defence due to insufficient specificity regarding the triggering act and the lack of evidence that the accused acted "on the sudden."

This is a ruling on the admissibility of defence expert opinion evidence in a criminal trial involving two sisters charged with killing their mother.

The defence sought to call Dr. Danièle Bélanger, an expert in Vietnamese society, gender, family, and migration, to provide cultural context evidence.

The Crown opposed the admission of this evidence.

The trial judge conducted a voir dire and ruled that the expert evidence was admissible, finding that it met all threshold requirements under the Mohan framework and that the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effects.

The evidence was found to be logically relevant to issues of credibility, motive, intent, and self-defence, and necessary to assist the jury in understanding the accused's state of mind and the cultural context in which they operated.

In a pre-trial admissibility ruling in a homicide prosecution, the court addressed adoptive admissions, detention, voluntariness, delay in implementing the right to counsel, fresh start cautions, and a privacy challenge to cell-block video surveillance.

The court held that the initial 911 admissions and later scene gestures provided some evidence on which a jury could find adoptive admissions between the co-accused.

Applying the Grant detention framework, the court found no detention during the first officer’s preliminary scene questioning after the 911 call, no breach of s. 10, and no basis to exclude the ensuing statements under s. 24(2).

The court also found the subsequent police interviews were voluntary, that delay in securing counsel with a Vietnamese interpreter was reasonable in the circumstances, and that no fresh start caution was required.

The privacy challenge to brief upper-body exposure on cell surveillance footage failed, and in any event would not have justified exclusion of the later interview.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of refusing to comply with an approved screening device demand.

The appeal argued that the trial judge applied an incorrect legal standard, specifically requiring "reasonable and probable grounds to believe" that the accused had care or control of a motor vehicle, instead of the lower standard of "reasonable grounds to suspect" as required by s. 320.27(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the trial judge indeed applied the wrong legal standard, which affected the verdict.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered.

The defendant, Scott Watson, was found guilty of careless driving causing death and careless driving causing bodily harm under the Highway Traffic Act.

The trial, conducted via Zoom, involved a collision where the defendant's motorcycle struck two elderly pedestrians, one fatally, who were jaywalking.

The court found the defendant was speeding, failed to maintain proper situational awareness, and did not react prudently, concluding his actions constituted a lack of reasonable care and attention, despite the unexpected nature of the pedestrians' crossing.

The accused, Manish Kumar, was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance and having a blood-alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg.

The court found the accused guilty of impaired operation based on civilian and police observations of erratic driving, physical indicia of impairment, and consciousness of guilt.

However, the court excluded the breath test results for the "80 and over" charge under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the police failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the accused, whose first language was Punjabi, understood and could meaningfully exercise his right to counsel, constituting a serious Charter violation.

Consequently, the accused was found not guilty of the "80 and over" charge.

The Crown and the accused brought a joint motion for an order to conduct the upcoming trial in person, primarily because the accused lacked video access for remote proceedings.

The court noted that the Hamilton Provincial Offences Court was not currently scheduling in-person trials due to pandemic conditions.

Applying the factors from Carleton Condominium, the court found that court administration could facilitate Zoom access for the accused, fulfilling his fair trial rights.

The joint motion was dismissed, and the trial was ordered to proceed remotely.