M. Martin

In a judge-alone criminal trial arising from a fatal motor vehicle collision and alleged street racing, the court ruled on a blended voir dire respecting the admissibility of the accused's police statement.

The court found the accused was not detained when he voluntarily attended the police station, and held the statement was voluntary under the confessions rule.

The court further held there was no breach of the rights to counsel or silence, and that even if a right to counsel breach had occurred, exclusion under s. 24(2) would not have been warranted.

The statement was also not excludable under the common law fairness jurisdiction.

In this judge-alone criminal trial, the accused faced three assault counts, one sexual assault count, and one unlawful confinement count arising from allegations by a former intimate partner.

The Crown relied solely on the complainant’s evidence.

The court found numerous inconsistencies, omissions, and reliability concerns in that evidence, including contradictions about post-incident contact, prior statements to police, and memory issues linked to drug use and mental state.

While corroboration was not legally required, the absence of corroborative evidence, combined with the cumulative credibility concerns, left the court with a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

On a defence application in a judge-alone criminal trial, the court considered whether charges involving one complainant should be severed from remaining charges involving other complainants.

Applying the interests of justice analysis from R. v. Last, the court weighed prejudice to the accused, the factual and legal nexus between the counts, and the desire to avoid multiple proceedings.

The court found the evidence was not complex, there was no similar fact application, and the charges involving the complainant sought to be severed were not closely connected in any meaningful way to the remaining counts.

The differing complainants, differing charge types, and differing defences outweighed the modest efficiency benefits of a single trial.

Severance was granted.

During a jury trial on charges of common assault and sexual assault, the accused brought a Corbett application seeking to edit his prior criminal record so that the Crown could not cross‑examine him on prior convictions if he testified.

The court applied the balancing test assessing whether the probative value of prior convictions for credibility exceeded their prejudicial effect.

Older convictions unrelated to honesty, including weapons possession, drug possession, and mischief, were excluded due to limited relevance and risk of prejudice.

However, convictions for personation with intent and multiple breaches of court orders were admitted because they bore directly on credibility and respect for the law.

The defence application was therefore granted in part.