Michael Spratt

The accused, charged with sexual assault and other offences, sought leave under s. 278.92 of the Criminal Code to use the complainant's hospital records during cross-examination.

The records, which were disclosed by the Crown, contained statements made by the complainant to a social worker and physician that were inconsistent with her subsequent police statement.

The court weighed the factors under s. 278.92(3) and found that the accused's right to make full answer and defence outweighed the complainant's privacy interests.

The court granted the application, allowing the accused to use the records to prove prior inconsistent statements.

The accused, JS, was charged with eight counts including assault, sexual assault, assault with a weapon, and uttering threats against the complainant, AG.

The defence conceded guilt on six counts but disputed the sexual assault charges.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both AG and JS's testimonies, along with corroborating physical and witness evidence.

The court rejected JS's version of events regarding the sexual activity, finding AG's testimony credible and corroborated.

The defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent was also rejected.

JS was found guilty on all eight counts.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision concerning the first-degree murder of Dady Junior Jean on November 4, 2015.

Four defendants were charged: Dominique P. Chrétien, Johnnie-Dean Locey-Derochie, Candy L. Locey, and Todd S. Turner.

The Crown sought committal of all four on first-degree murder.

The court examined whether there was sufficient evidence to commit each defendant to trial on first-degree murder, considering the elements of planning and deliberation.

The court found that the cumulative circumstantial evidence, including motive, opportunity, communications, procurement of a firearm, and coordinated actions, supported reasonable inferences that all four defendants knew of and participated in a planned and deliberate murder.

All four defendants were committed to trial on first-degree murder.

The Crown brought an application under section 540(7) of the Criminal Code to admit a videotaped police interview with a witness who subsequently died.

The witness had been interviewed regarding his role as a taxi driver transporting individuals allegedly involved in a first-degree murder.

The court declined to admit the statement, finding it did not meet the threshold of being credible or trustworthy, and exercising its discretion to refuse admission given that the declarant would be unavailable for cross-examination at trial and the evidence would therefore be inadmissible at trial unless it met the principled hearsay exception standard.

The accused was charged with sexual offences against two complainants, with allegations spanning 1980-1981.

The Crown proceeded with a joint trial on all counts.

The accused applied for severance of the counts by complainant.

The court granted the severance application, finding that the benefits to the administration of justice in trying the counts together were minimal and that the cumulative effect of relevant factors, particularly the possibility of the accused testifying on one set of counts but not the other, and the uncertain merit of a similar fact evidence application, favoured separate trials.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and forcible confinement following an interaction with the complainant after a church service.

The complainant alleged the accused attacked her, choked her, and sexually assaulted her outside the church.

The accused testified that the interaction was consensual and related to faith healing, denying any sexual contact.

The court applied the W.(D.) test for credibility and found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, including contradictions with video surveillance and prior testimony.

The court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on both charges.

The accused was charged with robbery arising from a bank robbery in Ottawa where the perpetrator threatened a teller and fled with cash before discarding clothing and sunglasses containing DNA evidence.

DNA recovered from the sunglasses strongly matched the accused’s profile and weaker DNA evidence linked him to the jacket found nearby.

Eyewitnesses provided only general physical descriptions and could not identify the perpetrator.

The court held that while the DNA evidence and circumstantial factors made it very probable that the accused committed the robbery, the forensic evidence could not establish when the DNA was deposited and required supporting evidence connecting the accused to the crime at the relevant time.

Applying the reasonable doubt standard, the court found the evidence insufficient to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

The offender was convicted of conspiracy to commit fraud and fraud after impersonating a bank customer and directing a financial institution to transfer $497,000 from the victim’s account to another account.

The scheme involved obtaining confidential banking information from a co‑conspirator and using it to take over the victim’s account.

The court considered significant aggravating factors including the large amount involved, planning and organization of the offence, commission of the offence while on release for a similar charge, and the offender’s prior fraud convictions.

Although the funds were ultimately recovered and the offender had family and health circumstances, denunciation and deterrence were emphasized.

A penitentiary sentence within the three‑to‑five‑year range for serious bank fraud was imposed.

Multiple accused brought directed verdict motions in a jury trial alleging fraud and conspiracy involving the takeover of ING Direct customer bank accounts using confidential customer information.

The court reviewed the legal requirements for conspiracy, emphasizing the need for proof of an agreement and a shared unlawful objective, which may be inferred from circumstantial evidence.

The court held that there was some evidence capable of supporting an inference of conspiratorial agreement for certain counts, including evidence that one accused obtained confidential banking information and that another used that information to access accounts and transfer funds.

The motions for directed verdicts were dismissed for several accused because the evidence could permit a properly instructed jury to infer participation in the conspiracy or fraud.

However, one accused obtained a directed verdict of acquittal on a specific fraud count due to insufficient evidence linking him to the fraudulent transfer of funds.

Following a jury conviction for manslaughter arising from a fatal stabbing outside a bar, the court determined the appropriate custodial sentence.

The offender retrieved a large knife from home after a verbal confrontation and later stabbed the unarmed victim multiple times during a confrontation in a parking lot.

The court found high moral blameworthiness given the deliberate retrieval and concealment of the weapon and the vulnerable position of the victim, although provocation relating to the victim’s treatment of the offender’s girlfriend was a mitigating factor.

Applying the sentencing range for morally blameworthy manslaughter established in appellate authority, the court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence while also considering the offender’s lack of criminal record, employment history, and prospects for rehabilitation.

A nine‑year sentence was imposed with enhanced credit for pre‑sentence custody.

The accused brought a motion under s. 591(3)(b) of the Criminal Code seeking severance from co‑accused in a joint fraud prosecution relating to a scheme involving unauthorized access to banking information and transfers of funds from customer accounts.

The applicant argued that a co‑accused might introduce evidence of the applicant’s prior fraud conviction involving the same financial institution, which could cause significant prejudice in a jury trial.

The Crown opposed severance, submitting that the concern was speculative and that any prejudice could be addressed through jury instructions.

The court emphasized the strong presumption favouring joint trials where charges arise from the same series of events and held that the risk of prejudice was not sufficiently established at this stage.

Because it was uncertain whether the evidence would be tendered or admitted at trial, the severance application was found to be premature and speculative.

The accused, a public servant with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, was convicted of multiple counts of fraud on the government and breach of trust for accepting money to provide preferential treatment to immigration applicants.

The court considered the accused's Aboriginal heritage under Gladue principles but found no causal link to the offences.

Emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence for breach of trust by a public official, the court sentenced the accused to four years' incarceration concurrently on all counts.

Sentencing decision following conviction of two accused for assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm against a young child with sickle cell anemia.

The accused inflicted repeated physical abuse including whipping with a belt, resulting in significant scarring.

The court imposed custodial sentences of 9 months for the mother and 5 months for the co-accused, finding that non-custodial sentences would be inadequate given the severity of abuse, the vulnerability of the victim, the positions of trust held by the accused, and the complete absence of remorse or insight demonstrated by either accused.