Lawrence Robert Forstner

The Crown brought an application under section 715.1 of the Criminal Code for the admission of a video statement from a child complainant in a sexual assault and sexual interference case.

The defence challenged the admissibility, arguing the statement was not made within a "reasonable time" due to a four-year delay between the alleged incident and disclosure.

The court applied a six-factor test to assess the reasonableness of the delay, considering the child's age, relationship to the accused, nature of the offence, developmental stages, and potential external influences.

The court found the delay reasonable, noting that children often delay reporting such incidents and that the delay did not negatively impact the complainant's ability to recall.

The video statement was deemed admissible.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction acquittal for operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding the legal limit.

The trial judge had excluded breathalyzer results after finding the police failed to make the breath demand “as soon as practicable” under the Criminal Code and concluded that the delay constituted breaches of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

On appeal, the court held the trial judge misapprehended the officer’s evidence regarding investigative steps taken before the arrest and breath demand, including safety checks and vehicle impoundment procedures.

The appellate court concluded that the approximately 15–17 minute delay was reasonable in the circumstances and that the demand was made as soon as practicable.

The breathalyzer evidence was therefore admissible and all necessary findings supported a conviction.