L. Wannamaker

The defendant brought a motion for directions on where and before whom he could bring a bail application.

The Court of Appeal had previously upheld his convictions but overturned his dangerous offender designation, directing a new sentencing hearing before a different judge.

Because no judge had yet been assigned to the new sentencing hearing, the defendant sought clarity on bail jurisdiction.

The Superior Court held that under section 523(2)(a) of the Criminal Code, since the defendant was currently being tried before 'a court' but no specific judge was conducting the trial, jurisdiction for the bail application rested with the Superior Court of Justice generally until a specific judge was assigned.

The accused applied under the Criminal Code for a review of bail conditions imposed after being charged with perjury arising from testimony given as a Crown witness in another criminal trial.

The impugned terms prohibited communication with motorcycle outlaw members and attendance at a specified address used as a motorcycle club clubhouse.

Applying a functional approach to bail review, the court held that the accused’s right to reasonable bail continues and the correctness standard permits reconsideration even absent changed circumstances.

The court found the impugned conditions overly broad and unsupported by evidence linking them to the integrity of the accused’s trial.

The conditions were therefore removed as inconsistent with the accused’s constitutional right to reasonable bail.

The Crown brought a combined application under ss. 486.1, 486.2, and 715.1 of the Criminal Code in a prosecution for alleged sexual offences against a minor.

The Crown sought to permit the complainant to testify by videolink and to introduce the complainant’s videotaped police statement as evidence in chief.

The court permitted testimony by videolink but required cross‑examination to occur from the courtroom rather than in the witness room to avoid intimidation and logistical concerns.

The court dismissed the Crown’s application under s. 715.1, finding that the videotaped statement—recorded approximately three and a half years after the first alleged offence—was not made within a reasonable time.

The court held that the Crown bears the burden on a balance of probabilities to establish the timing requirement under s. 715.1.