Lindsay Little

The court considered whether A.O.'s post-arrest statement to police was voluntary, given his mental health history and evidence of psychosis.

After reviewing the circumstances of the arrest, A.O.'s mental state, and the content of the police interview, the court found that A.O. had the capacity to understand what he was saying and that his statement could be used against him.

The application to admit the statement was granted.

This ruling addresses the Crown’s application for the complainant to testify via CCTV in a sexual assault and assault by choking prosecution.

The court grants the application, finding that the complainant’s concerns about testifying in the presence of the accused and before a jury are reasonably held and that testifying via CCTV will facilitate a full and candid account of her evidence.

The decision reviews the legislative amendments to section 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code, clarifies that necessity is no longer the standard, and emphasizes the importance of balancing the interests of the complainant and the accused’s right to a fair trial.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction acquittal of the accused on a charge of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams.

The trial judge had excluded the breath readings after finding a breach of the accused's s. 10(b) Charter rights because the officer did not facilitate the right to counsel while waiting for an Approved Screening Device to arrive.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in law by failing to assess whether the accused had a realistic opportunity to consult counsel and by misapplying the s. 24(2) analysis.

The acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm arising from a stabbing at a wedding reception.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence and erred in applying the law of self-defence.

The Superior Court of Justice found the trial judge correctly applied the three-part test for self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code and reasonably concluded the appellant's response was disproportionate and not a justified act of self-defence.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed, though the victim fine surcharge was set aside.

The defendant was charged with operating a conveyance while impaired by alcohol and having a blood alcohol level of 80 mg or more within two hours of operating a conveyance.

The trial proceeded as a blended voir dire.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of breath test evidence on multiple grounds: that the approved screening device demand was not made immediately; that his s. 10(b) right to counsel was breached by an eight-minute delay in informing him of that right; and that the Intoxlyzer test was not administered as soon as practicable.

The court found a breach of s. 10(b) rights and excluded the breath test evidence under s. 24(2) due to a pattern of systemic failures by the Ottawa Police Service to immediately advise detainees of their right to counsel.

However, the defendant was found guilty of impaired operation of a conveyance based on evidence of his driving pattern, physical observations, and the presence of alcohol in the vehicle.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to the Criminal Code.

The trial proceeded on a blended basis with evidence applicable to both a Charter voir dire and the trial proper.

The central issue was whether the Crown had proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, with particular focus on whether the breath samples were obtained "as soon as practicable" and whether the accused's Charter rights were violated.

The court found a serious breach of the accused's section 10(b) Charter rights when the officer failed to advise the accused of his rights to counsel during the period between the ASD demand and the arrival of the approved screening device.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

As a result, the Crown could not prove the charge and the allegations were dismissed.

The Crown brought an application under section 486.3 of the Criminal Code seeking to have counsel appointed to cross-examine the complainant on behalf of the defendant in a peace bond hearing under section 810 of the Criminal Code.

The defendant appeared in person.

The court ruled that it had jurisdiction to make the order, finding that the Criminal Code procedures and provisions apply to proceedings under section 810 by virtue of section 810(5), which provides that the summary conviction procedures apply with necessary modifications.