Christine Barlett-Hughes

The applicant, charged with murder and attempted murder, sought an order directing a review of his detention order under s. 680 of the Criminal Code.

The Chief Justice found no realistic likelihood that a panel of the Court of Appeal would find the bail judge erred in detaining the applicant on the secondary ground.

The applicant's request to introduce fresh evidence was declined, with the Chief Justice noting that material changes in circumstances should generally be brought as a renewed bail application before the Superior Court.

The application was dismissed without prejudice to renewing the application in the Superior Court.

The accused was committed for trial on multiple counts of sexual assault.

At the preliminary inquiry, defence counsel sought to cross-examine the complainant about his personal diary to lay the foundation for a subsequent production application at trial under s. 278.3 of the Criminal Code.

The preliminary inquiry judge disallowed the questions.

The accused successfully applied for certiorari, and the reviewing judge ordered the continuation of the preliminary inquiry to permit limited cross-examination.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while questions about the actual contents of the diary are impermissible, the accused may ask general questions about the diary's existence, characteristics, and whether certain topics are covered, provided the questions do not intrude on the complainant's private or personal domain.