Lauren Crawford

This decision concerns the prosecution of five members of the 2018 Canadian World Junior Hockey Team for sexual assault.

The complainant, E.M., alleged that after consensual sexual activity with Michael McLeod, she was sexually assaulted by McLeod and his teammates in a London hotel room.

The accused maintained that E.M. was a willing and active participant.

The court found significant inconsistencies and reliability issues in the complainant’s evidence, including contradictions with video evidence and other witness testimony.

The court concluded that the Crown had not proven the absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt for any of the accused and acquitted all five.

The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the law of consent, credibility, and the use of myths and stereotypes in sexual assault trials.

This decision addresses the Crown's application to admit a text message as hearsay evidence under the principled exception in a high-profile sexual assault prosecution.

The court reviews the necessity and reliability requirements for hearsay, ultimately finding that the reliability threshold is not met and dismissing the application.

The ruling provides a detailed application of the Supreme Court’s guidance in R. v. Bradshaw and R. v. Charles on the dangers of hearsay and the use of corroborative evidence.

The Crown sought to admit a text message sent by Brett Howden to Taylor Raddysh as past recollection recorded, an exception to the hearsay rule.

The court reviewed the requirements for admissibility, including reliability, timeliness, absence of memory, and the witness’s ability to vouch for the accuracy of the record.

The court found that while the first three requirements were met, Mr. Howden could not vouch for the accuracy of the text message, as he had no memory of sending it and could not confirm its truthfulness.

As a result, the application to admit the text message as past recollection recorded was denied.

This decision addresses a defence motion for a mistrial after a jury note alleged unprofessional conduct by defence counsel, raising concerns about jury impartiality.

The court reviews the legal principles governing mistrials, including the presumption of jury impartiality, the test for reasonable apprehension of bias, and the discretion to discharge jurors or declare a mistrial.

The court finds that the fairness of the trial has been compromised and grants the motion for a mistrial, emphasizing that such a remedy is reserved for the clearest of cases where no other remedy will suffice.

The defendant, charged with second-degree murder, sought to introduce expert psychiatric evidence on the "fight or flight" reaction and the effects of marijuana to support self-defence and provocation.

The court dismissed the application, finding an insufficient evidentiary foundation for the proposed expert testimony to be relevant and necessary to the specific facts of the case.

The court also expressed obiter doubts about the necessity of such evidence, particularly regarding the "fight or flight" response, which is generally within the common experience of a jury.

The Crown sought to admit evidence of a Crime Stoppers tip allegedly made by the accused, Keenan Corner, in a second-degree murder trial.

The defence and Crime Stoppers argued informer privilege applied.

The court ruled that informer privilege does not apply when an accused uses the Crime Stoppers system to deflect suspicion from themselves, as such conduct would constitute a criminal offence (public mischief, obstruction of justice) and divert the privilege from its intended purpose.

The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the Crime Stoppers call was not legitimate and was made by the accused, based on surveillance evidence and significant similarities between the tip and the accused's statements to police.

The evidence was deemed admissible, subject to a final review of its probative versus prejudicial value.

The Crown sought mandamus with certiorari in aid to quash preliminary inquiry discharges on several drug and firearms-related offences.

The court examined whether the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error by failing to consider the whole of the evidence and by exceeding the limited weighing permitted when assessing circumstantial evidence under the committal test.

The reviewing court found that the preliminary inquiry judge failed to consider key evidence linking the accused to a residence containing methamphetamine and failed to consider direct expert evidence linking firearms to gun boxes found in a storage unit.

Those failures constituted jurisdictional error requiring intervention.

However, the court held there was insufficient evidence to support committal of one accused on ammunition-related charges tied to the storage unit.