Mark Holmes

The applicant, charged with impaired driving, brought a motion seeking permission for his counsel to conduct the trial without a mask and for witnesses to testify unmasked.

Counsel argued that masks impeded his ability to effectively cross-examine witnesses by obscuring non-verbal cues, muffling his voice, and causing distraction.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that counsel's effectiveness would not be meaningfully reduced and that public health concerns, supported by existing regulations and guidelines, justified the masking requirement.

The judge emphasized judicial discretion in balancing fair trial rights against public health measures and the importance of consistency in court procedures.

The defendant brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings on the grounds that his right to trial within a reasonable time had been infringed.

The total delay from the swearing of the first information to the end of trial was 21 months and 12 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan by 3 months and 12 days.

The court found that defence delay totalled 4 months and 13 days, resulting in a net delay of 16 months and 30 days, which fell within the presumptive ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

This is a voir dire ruling on the admissibility of expert opinion evidence from forensic accountant Mark Grenon regarding Senator Duffy's travel claims, financial practices, Senate contract funds, and a payment to the Receiver General.

The Crown sought to adduce comprehensive forensic accounting evidence analyzing Senator Duffy's expense claims submitted to the Senate, his personal financial situation, Senate funds procured and distributed through third parties, and a specific payment.

The defence objected to most of the evidence as overreaching, unnecessary, and prejudicial.

The court applied the two-step Mohan/Abbey framework for admissibility of expert evidence and admitted substantially all of the Crown's proposed evidence, with limited restrictions on the scope of certain areas.

The court ruled on the admissibility of the Eleventh Report of the Senate's Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration dated December 15, 2010.

The defence sought to admit the report as a public document and under the principled approach to hearsay.

The Crown opposed admission, arguing the report lacked reliability and constituted inadmissible hearsay.

The court found the report met the criteria for admissibility as a public document, demonstrating necessity, reliability, and relevance to the trial.

The report provided background information on Senate administrative rules and internal audit findings regarding senators' expense claims and administrative practices.

The Crown brought an ex parte, in camera application mid-trial seeking an order to exclude the public from the courtroom pursuant to section 486 of the Criminal Code due to an alleged security breach.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear an ex parte application during trial and concluded that such hearings are permissible in certain circumstances where they do not prejudice the accused's ability to defend himself or have knowledge of matters affecting his vital interests.

The court found that the application concerned court security rather than the substantive trial and therefore proceeded ex parte.

Evidence of a security breach was accepted, and an order excluding members of the public from the courtroom was granted, with specified exceptions for accredited press, court staff, Law Society members, and other designated persons.