Melissa Ernewein

The accused, charged with one count of sexual assault involving multiple incidents over a lengthy period, brought an application for particulars under s. 587(1) of the Criminal Code.

He sought specific dates, times, and places of the alleged assaults.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the replacement indictment, which specified the time period, place, victim, and offence, combined with substantial Crown disclosure, provided sufficient information for the accused to make full answer and defence.

The applicant brought a constitutional challenge to the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions in s. 99(2) and s. 99(3) of the Criminal Code.

The court declined to hold a full hearing on s. 99(2)(a), ruling that prior declarations of constitutional invalidity by judges of coordinate jurisdiction rendered the provision of no force and effect, and it would be inappropriate to reconsider whether those decisions were plainly wrong.

The challenge to s. 99(3) was dismissed as moot because the applicant was not being sentenced for an offence under that section.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, applied for a change of venue for his re-trial.

In his first trial, the jury convicted him of causing an indignity to a body but could not reach a verdict on the murder charge, resulting in a mistrial.

The applicant argued that extensive pre-trial publicity regarding the 'split verdict' created a likelihood of prejudice in the local area.

Relying on expert evidence regarding the effects of pre-trial publicity, the court found that knowledge of the first trial's outcome would likely taint a new jury's ability to be impartial, as it implied the first jury rejected the accused's evidence.

The application was granted and the venue was ordered changed.