Kathleen Mary Malkovich

The accused, R.S., charged with sexual assault, was self-represented.

Due to late disclosure, the trial was adjourned, bringing it perilously close to the Jordan presumptive ceiling.

During the trial, after the complainant's cross-examination by s. 486.3 counsel, the court was asked to appoint the s. 486.3 counsel as amicus curiae for the remainder of the trial, which the Crown opposed.

The court appointed amicus curiae, finding it essential to discharge judicial functions, ensure the trial concluded within a reasonable time, and address complex issues like the reception of witness evidence, potential racial bias arguments, and police investigation failures, thereby preventing further delays that could lead to a Jordan application.

The accused, R.S., an environmental aid at Hamilton General Hospital, was charged with sexual assault after a patient, L.R., alleged he touched her vagina while she was recovering from a car accident.

The Crown and the accused presented conflicting accounts of the events.

The court found both the complainant and the accused to be credible witnesses.

Applying the R. v. W.(D.) framework, the court determined that its inability to resolve the conflicting credible evidence about the alleged crime left it in a state of reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

This voir dire ruling addresses the admissibility of inculpatory statements made by Joshua Barreira to police following his arrest for first-degree murder.

The defence argued the statements were involuntary due to police oppression (cold, sickness, hunger, exhaustion, denial of right to silence) and inducements related to his wife and brother's arrests.

The court found no oppression, noting Barreira was a "savvy and experienced individual" who understood his rights and repeatedly attempted to negotiate a deal.

The court also determined that the idea of a false confession to protect family members was self-generated by Barreira, and the police officer's actions did not constitute improper inducements.

Consequently, the statements were deemed voluntary and admissible at trial, subject to editing out references to Barreira's criminal record.