L. Fineberg

The accused, a Taekwondo coach charged with sexual assault, applied for the production of interview recordings and notes held by the CBC involving one of the complainants.

The court determined that the common law O'Connor regime applied rather than the Criminal Code s. 278.1 regime, as the complainant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in statements made for a television documentary.

Balancing the accused's right to make full answer and defence against the media's freedom of the press under the Vice Media framework, the court ordered the CBC to produce limited, highly relevant excerpts of the interviews and notes.

Criminal trial arising from allegations that a high-level martial arts coach sexually abused a teenage athlete over a period of years within a coach-athlete relationship marked by control, secrecy, and grooming.

The court addressed delayed disclosure, the complainant's university essay about another coach's sexual offences, and multiple inconsistencies in the complainant's accounts, but concluded these issues did not undermine her credibility or the reliability of her evidence on the core allegations.

Similar fact evidence from other athletes was admitted for limited purposes and provided some contextual support, though the court placed little weight on it in proving the charged acts.

Applying the W.(D.) framework to the accused's denial, the court held the Crown proved all 10 counts beyond a reasonable doubt, while reserving on whether some counts should be stayed as duplicative.

In a judge-alone criminal proceeding involving sexual abuse allegations by teenage athletes against their taekwondo coach, the court considered both a Crown application to admit count-to-count and third-party similar fact evidence and a defence motion to sever counts involving one complainant.

Applying the similar fact framework, the court held that the evidence of other athletes was highly probative of the actus reus and of the controlling trust-based environment in which the abuse was alleged to have occurred, and that the Crown had disproved collusion on a balance of probabilities.

Applying the severance principles, the court nevertheless concluded that trial fairness required severance because the accused had an objectively justifiable intention to testify on one set of counts but not the others.

After the accused confirmed he would not testify on the remaining counts, the counts involving one complainant were severed and that complainant was barred from testifying as a similar fact witness in the ongoing trial.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought a motion for disclosure of communications between the complainant and the CBC regarding a proposed documentary.

The Crown and third parties argued the communications were protected under s. 278 of the Criminal Code due to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The court found that while there was a subjective expectation of privacy, the communications regarding the scope and terms of the CBC interviews were directly relevant to the defence's O'Connor application.

The court ordered the disclosure of relevant emails and texts, excising irrelevant personal details.

The offender was convicted by a jury of second degree murder after intentionally driving his SUV onto a sidewalk and killing the victim.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment and set the period of parole ineligibility at 12 years.

The court considered the offender's extensive criminal record, the devastating impact on the victim's family, and the danger posed to the public as aggravating factors justifying an increase from the minimum 10-year period.

During a trial for second degree murder where the accused allegedly drove his SUV onto a sidewalk and killed the victim following a nightclub altercation, defence counsel requested that the defence of provocation be put to the jury.

The trial judge refused the request, finding no air of reality to the defence.

The judge concluded there was no evidence that an ordinary person would be deprived of self-control by the insults exchanged, no evidence the accused actually lost self-control, and no evidence that the insults or the accused's reaction were sudden.