K. Symes

The accused, charged with murder, brought a pre-trial application to adduce evidence of the deceased victim's propensity for violence when intoxicated to support claims of self-defence and provocation.

The Crown conceded the evidence was admissible but sought to lead reply evidence of the accused's dated criminal record for violent offences.

The court held that the accused could lead the evidence.

If the accused limited the evidence to the period of May to August 2019, the Crown could not lead reply evidence of the accused's criminal record.

However, if the accused led evidence of the victim's propensity predating May 2019, the Crown would be permitted to lead reply evidence of the accused's record, provided the underlying facts of the convictions were also adduced to prevent undue prejudice.

The accused, charged with murder, brought a pre-trial application under the O'Connor framework for the production of a key Crown witness's third-party psychiatric records.

The witness, who had a history of schizophrenia, had given a statement to police about a conversation with the accused shortly after the murder.

The court dismissed the application at the first stage, finding the records were not 'likely relevant'.

The court held that the request was overbroad and rested on impermissible stereotypes about mental illness, as there was no case-specific evidence that the witness's condition impaired her ability to observe, retain, or recount the events at the material times.

The accused, an Indigenous man with mental health issues, was held in continuous administrative segregation for 1,647 days while awaiting trial for first degree murder.

He brought an application seeking a stay of proceedings, alleging violations of his rights under ss. 7, 9, 12, and 15 of the Charter.

The court found that the prolonged segregation, which lacked meaningful review and mitigating measures, constituted cruel and unusual treatment, arbitrary detention, and a deprivation of liberty and equality rights.

The court concluded that the state misconduct caused permanent cognitive impairment, including memory loss, which irreparably prejudiced the accused's right to a fair trial and undermined the integrity of the justice system.

A stay of proceedings was granted.