M. Cunningham

The applicants, who were in pretrial detention, brought an application for a stay of proceedings or damages, alleging that COVID-19 restrictions at the detention centre violated their rights.

The Crown sought summary dismissal of the application under Rule 34.02 of the Criminal Proceedings Rules.

The court found that the restrictions were reasonable and necessary responses to the pandemic, comparable to restrictions faced by the general public.

Concluding there was no reasonable prospect of success, the court summarily dismissed the application.

The Crown brought a motion under s. 752.1(1) of the Criminal Code for an order remanding the offender for an assessment by a designated expert, Dr. Philip Klassen, for a dangerous offender application.

The offender consented to the assessment but requested that Dr. Paul Fedoroff conduct it instead.

The court held that while the defence may make submissions, the Crown is generally entitled to choose the assessor if the proposed candidate is qualified and available.

The court designated Dr. Klassen, noting concerns that Dr. Fedoroff's previously stated position on treatability could prematurely preclude a dangerous offender designation.

During a criminal trial, the Crown brought a motion to reconsider a previous Corbett ruling that had excised four of the accused's prior convictions for sexual assault.

The accused had testified extensively that he always pleaded guilty when he had done something wrong, creating a misleading picture for the jury, as he had pleaded not guilty and been convicted after trial for three of the excised sexual assault charges.

The court agreed with the Crown, reversing the Corbett ruling to allow the three convictions to be presented to the jury to correct the distorted view of the accused's credibility, with a clear instruction against propensity reasoning.