2 total
The accused's application for production of the complainant's medical records was dismissed for failing to establish likely relevance.
The accused applied for production of the complainant's medical records pursuant to section 278.3 of the Criminal Code in a sexual assault case.
The court conducted an in camera hearing to determine whether the records should be produced for judicial review.
The court found that the complainant's waiver of her privacy rights was invalid because she did not have knowledge of the statutory protections or the consequences of waiving them.
The court also rejected the defence argument that the Crown had a duty to review the records and take a position on likely relevance.
On the substantive issue, the court found that the accused failed to establish that the records were likely relevant to any issue at trial or to the competence of the witness.
The application was dismissed.
The court granted a stay of proceedings for impaired driving charges due to a 14.5-month unreasonable delay largely caused by Crown conduct.
The defendant was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired and with blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit.
He brought a Charter s. 11(b) application alleging unreasonable delay between his arrest on February 2, 2012, and his scheduled trial date of April 15, 2013—a period of approximately 14.5 months.
The court found that the delay violated the defendant's constitutional right to be tried within a reasonable time and granted a stay of proceedings pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter.
