Krista Leszczynski

The accused brought an application seeking the trial judge's recusal, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the judge's findings of fact in previous pre-trial motions.

The accused argued that the judge's findings were palpably unreasonable and consistently favoured the prosecution.

The court dismissed the application, finding it was an attempt to reargue decided issues and that the allegations of bias were without merit.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including aggravated assault against a three-month-old infant and assault with a weapon against his girlfriend, following a domestic dispute.

The Crown relied heavily on the girlfriend's videotaped police statement, which she recanted at trial.

Applying the W.D. framework, the court found the accused guilty of simple assault for intentionally dropping the infant's bassinette and for placing a pillow over his girlfriend's face.

However, the court acquitted the accused of aggravated assault and uttering threats, finding reasonable doubt regarding the cause of the infant's severe head injuries and the exact words spoken during the pillow incident.

The Crown applied to remove defence counsel due to a conflict of interest after the same lawyer had represented both an accused and a key Crown witness who later provided incriminating statements.

The accused sought a stay of proceedings or exclusion of the witness’s evidence under ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter, arguing police inducements and delayed disclosure compromised their fair trial rights.

The court found that while police comments undermining the witness’s confidence in her lawyer were inappropriate, the accused could not rely on alleged Charter breaches affecting the witness, and no actual prejudice to their ability to make full answer and defence was established.

The court declined to grant a stay or exclude the witness’s evidence but held the conflict required removal of counsel.

The accused would need to obtain new counsel and a new trial date.

The accused was tried on an eight-count indictment alleging sexual offences against a child.

The Crown proceeded only on four counts of sexual touching, with the sexual assault counts subsumed pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The complainant provided detailed testimony describing repeated incidents in which the accused touched her vagina while she slept in his bed during visits to his residence.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and consistent witness and rejected the accused’s denials, noting his evasive answers during cross‑examination and admissions that corroborated aspects of the complainant’s account.

Applying the framework in R. v. W. (D.), the court concluded the Crown proved the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.