Mark Dean

This decision addresses sentencing for breaches of a prohibition order under section 161 of the Criminal Code, imposed to protect children from sexual violence.

The accused, Lord Leland Gilbert, was acquitted of sexual offences but found guilty of breaching the prohibition order by associating with a child without required permissions.

The court imposed an 18-month global jail sentence (15 months for the prohibition breach and 3 months consecutive for breaching probation), followed by 3 years probation.

The decision emphasizes the seriousness of breaching such orders, the aggravating factors including the nature and blatant disregard of the breach, and the offender’s prior record.

The court also discusses the application of the Kienapple principle, Gladue considerations, and the jump principle in sentencing.

This decision addresses the evidentiary challenges in sexual offence cases involving child witnesses, focusing on the impact of cross-examination on the credibility and reliability of a young complainant.

The accused was charged with sexual offences against an eight-year-old child and breaching a court order prohibiting communication with children under 16 without permission.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony, particularly regarding whether the accused was seen in person or only via video chats, which undermined the reliability of the sexual offence allegations.

The complainant’s mother’s testimony was also found to be neither credible nor reliable, with concerns about possible coaching and financial motives.

However, the court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused breached the prohibition order by being in the complainant’s company and communicating with him, including via video chats, and convicted the accused on those counts while acquitting on the sexual offence charges.

The Crown sought to introduce expert evidence from a cellphone Health App to show the accused was pacing at home shortly after a fatal fire.

The defence opposed, arguing the underlying science was unreliable.

The court applied the White Burgess framework and found that the Health App data was not reliable for forensic purposes in this case, as there was no independent evidence the accused was walking or running with the phone, and the app could register false positives.

The evidence was ruled inadmissible.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of hearsay statements made by a deceased victim, Alan Rutherford, identifying his assailant in a first-degree murder case.

The Crown sought to admit these statements as dying declarations and spontaneous utterances.

The defence challenged their reliability due to inconsistencies among witnesses and a minor factual error by the declarant.

The court found that the statements met the criteria for both traditional hearsay exceptions and the principled approach, concluding that the defence's objections went to the weight of the evidence rather than its threshold admissibility.

The Crown's application to admit the statements was granted.

This ruling addresses an application by an accused, charged with two counts of first-degree murder, to sit at counsel table during trial.

The court outlines twelve principles governing such applications, emphasizing a balance between the accused's right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, and courtroom security.

The court rejects the notion that the defence bears an onus to show exceptional circumstances.

Applying these principles, the court grants the application, permitting the accused to sit at counsel table, subject to being restrained by silent ankle shackles and appropriate security placement.