William Dorsey

The accused was charged with historical sexual offences against the complainant, who was a young child at the time of the alleged incidents in 2000.

The accused, who was a youth at the time, denied the allegations.

The court applied the W.D. framework to assess credibility.

Although the court found the complainant's testimony compelling and did not believe the accused's denial, it concluded that the accused's evidence still left a reasonable doubt.

The charges were dismissed.

In a fraud prosecution alleging billing of the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan for drugs not dispensed, the Crown sought a pre‑trial ruling admitting “prescriber verification letters” completed by physicians during a government audit.

The Crown argued the documents were admissible as business records under s. 30 of the Canada Evidence Act or under the principled hearsay exception.

The court found the letters were not business records because they were not created or maintained in the ordinary course of medical practice and were prepared during an investigation.

Reliability concerns also arose from physicians’ testimony that their answers may have been influenced by memory gaps or investigator comments.

The court held the principled hearsay exception was not satisfied because reliability and necessity were not established.

The Crown brought an application during a criminal fraud prosecution seeking admission of a spreadsheet summary prepared by a police investigator analyzing drug purchase and billing records.

The spreadsheet relied on information from Ministry of Health databases and records obtained from a pharmaceutical wholesaler.

The court held that the Crown failed to establish that the underlying documents constituted admissible business records under s. 30 of the Canada Evidence Act or at common law.

Because the source documents themselves were inadmissible, the summary derived from them could not be admitted.

The court also expressed serious concerns regarding the reliability and completeness of the underlying data sources.

The Crown applied to admit a videotaped statement of a deceased witness under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The witness had reported finding a handgun in a backpack in his home.

The statement was not given under oath and no warning was provided.

The court found that necessity was established by the witness's death.

Threshold reliability was established because the statement was corroborated by the testimony of another witness who was present when the gun was found.

The court admitted the statement, subject to the redaction of certain prejudicial portions that implied the accused had a criminal record or other charges.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, assault, and unlawful confinement arising from an incident involving the complainant.

At trial the complainant testified she could not recall the events but affirmed that her preliminary inquiry testimony was truthful.

The Crown sought to rely on the preliminary inquiry transcript after a voir dire establishing necessity and reliability.

The court found the complainant’s trial memory loss was deliberate and motivated by a desire to reconcile with the accused, and accepted the preliminary inquiry evidence as reliable.

The accused was convicted of assault and sexual assault but acquitted of unlawful confinement due to reasonable doubt on whether the complainant’s liberty had been restrained.