The Crown appealed a Quebec Court of Appeal decision ordering a new trial on certain counts after the trial judge admitted, by consent of both parties, a transcript of testimony given at a first trial into a second trial commenced under s. 669.2(3) of the Criminal Code.
The Court of Appeal had required a two-part inquiry into the voluntariness of the accused's consent and the fairness of admitting prior testimony.
The Supreme Court held that s. 669.2(3) concerns jurisdiction, not evidence, and does not require any such statutory inquiry where parties have consented to filing prior testimony.
The presumption of competence of counsel applies, and absent indications vitiating consent, the judge need not intervene in counsel's tactical decisions.
The judge retains residual discretion to inquire where indications suggest consent is vitiated or trial fairness is undermined.
