M. Howatt

The accused was arrested and interviewed by police after making statements to undercover officers.

The Crown did not intend to introduce the police interview.

The defence brought an application to introduce specific exculpatory portions of the police interview, arguing they amplified the accused's earlier statements to the undercover officers.

The Crown opposed, arguing the statements were hearsay, self-serving, and would allow the accused to avoid cross-examination.

The court granted the application, finding the statements were an amplification of the earlier undercover interview and that the Crown would not be unfairly disadvantaged as it could introduce other parts of the interview.

The defence brought a pre-trial application seeking an order to make an opening statement to the jury immediately after the Crown's opening address, rather than at the close of the Crown's case.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing the discretion should not be exercised, especially since the defence would not undertake to call evidence.

The court balanced the risks of an early statement against fairness issues and the special circumstances of the case, including the defence's intention to concede guilt on a secondary count to focus the jury on the primary count of second-degree murder.

The court granted the application, finding an early, targeted opening by the defence appropriate.

The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal a summary conviction after learning that his guilty plea had triggered severe immigration consequences, including cancellation of a stay of removal.

Applying the governing extension-of-time factors, the court held that the applicant did not form a genuine intention to appeal until the immigration consequences became known, and that the delay was adequately explained by language barriers, mental health issues, hospitalization, and the time required to obtain records and transcripts.

The court further found arguable merit in the proposed appeal because the record did not indicate any plea inquiry addressing immigration consequences.

In the interests of justice, the extension of time was granted.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's ruling that the mandatory victim surcharge under section 737 of the Criminal Code violated section 7 of the Charter.

The respondents were individuals of limited financial means who had pleaded guilty to various offences.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that the victim surcharge is a consequence of conviction rather than a fine or punishment.

The court further held that the surcharge is not grossly disproportionate, as offenders can be granted significant time to pay.

The victim surcharges were imposed on all respondents with two years to pay.