M. Czuma

The accused, Adam Kramshoj, was charged with making available and possessing child pornography.

The matter proceeded as a blended s. 8 Charter motion and trial.

The court found multiple s. 8 Charter breaches by the authorities, including a "Branton error" in the search warrant, an unauthorized pre-Spencer request for ISP subscriber information, failure to file a timely report to justice, and unreasonable search conduct (seizure of a personal notebook and loss of evidence regarding a Rogers letter's location).

Applying the Grant test, the court concluded that the seriousness and multiplicity of the breaches, coupled with the impact on the accused's Charter rights and compromised defence, warranted the exclusion of all evidence.

Consequently, an acquittal was entered.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault, sexual touching of a child under fourteen, forcible confinement, and threatening death.

The offences involved a violent sexual assault against a very young child in a private residence, accompanied by physical restraint and threats intended to silence the victim.

The court considered the principles of denunciation and deterrence as paramount in cases involving sexual offences against children, particularly where a position of trust existed.

After reviewing aggravating factors including the victim’s young age, the familial trust relationship, the violence involved, and the ongoing psychological harm to the victim and family, the court imposed a penitentiary sentence.

A global sentence of five years and three months’ imprisonment was ordered, with concurrent and consecutive components for the various offences.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, unlawful confinement, sexual touching, and uttering death threats against his seven-year-old nephew.

The complainant provided delayed and incremental disclosure of the abuse, culminating in a traumatic seizure-like episode where he spontaneously uttered fears about his uncle.

The court admitted expert evidence on child sexual abuse disclosure patterns and trauma symptoms.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejecting the accused's blanket denial and defence theories of fabrication.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

In a judge‑alone criminal trial for sexual assault and related offences, the accused sought leave to adduce third‑party evidence contradicting aspects of the complainant’s testimony regarding unrelated childhood incidents.

The Crown objected on the basis of the collateral fact rule.

The court reviewed the scope of the collateral fact rule and its policy rationale, as well as recognized exceptions and the accused’s constitutional right to make full answer and defence.

The court held that the proposed evidence was sufficiently relevant to the reliability of the complainant’s disclosure and that its probative value outweighed potential prejudice or inefficiency.

Leave was granted to introduce the third‑party evidence.

In a trial for child sexual abuse, both the Crown and the defence brought applications to introduce expert testimony.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence from a clinical psychologist regarding delayed disclosure and the relationship between sexual abuse and non-epileptic seizures.

The defence sought to introduce evidence from a cognitive psychologist on similar topics, as well as the effect of questioning techniques on children.

The court applied the Mohan test and ruled that both experts could testify on delayed disclosure and non-epileptic seizures, as this information was outside the normal experience of the trier of fact.

However, the court excluded the defence expert's proposed testimony on questioning techniques, finding it unnecessary as assessing credibility is within the court's expertise.