Sara MacDonald

In a judge-alone criminal trial involving allegations of repeated sexual abuse of a child by a person in a position of trust, the court admitted the complainant's prior video-recorded police statements under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code and considered evidence of alleged grooming through pornography and electronic messaging.

The court reviewed the law concerning delayed disclosure by child complainants and the proper assessment of children's evidence, but found significant credibility and reliability concerns in the complainant's testimony, including inconsistencies, memory failures, admitted dishonesty in other contexts, and possible motive to fabricate.

The court also found the supporting evidence from the complainant's mother to be speculative in important respects and concluded that the forensic DNA evidence did not materially confirm the allegations.

Reasonable doubt remained on all six counts, and the accused was acquitted.

The accused sought an adjournment of a sexual offence trial to pursue disclosure of police records concerning a separate allegation made by the complainant against a third party during the same timeframe.

The court considered the governing discretion over adjournments, the defence right to make full answer and defence, the likely need for additional ss. 276 and 278 applications, and the effect of further delay on a young complainant in a pandemic-delayed proceeding.

The court found the defence had long-standing notice of the third-party allegation and had not acted diligently.

Balancing the accused's interests against complainant impact and the public interest in timely trial management, the court held that granting the adjournment would risk a miscarriage of justice and dismissed the application.

The Attorney General brought motions for a preservation order under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 regarding $7,950.05 seized from an individual during a traffic stop and a subsequent search warrant execution, and for an order dispensing with service on that individual.

The court found that the Attorney General had made diligent but unsuccessful efforts to locate and serve the individual, making service impractical, and that dispensing with service was in the interests of justice.

The court also found reasonable grounds to believe the currency was the proceeds or an instrument of drug trafficking, and granted the preservation order, leaving any potential Charter issues regarding the continued detention of the funds to be decided at the forfeiture hearing.