M. Johnson

The accused brought a severance application seeking separate trials on five counts involving four complainants arising from alleged sexual touching in a shared social and organizational context.

Applying the severance framework under s. 591 of the Criminal Code and the factors from the governing Supreme Court authority, the court held the accused had not shown on a balance of probabilities that severance was required to ensure a fair trial.

The court found a sufficient legal and factual nexus among the allegations, including common context, comparable seriousness, and a potentially viable count-to-count similar fact application.

Any prejudice from propensity reasoning could be addressed through limiting instructions, while separate trials would create inefficiency and delay.

In a habeas corpus matter arising from an involuntary transfer from medium to maximum security, the applicant sought appointment of amicus curiae to review sealed material withheld under s. 27(3) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The court held that the Supreme Court of Canada's direction in Khela assigns that review to the reviewing judge, not to an amicus.

Applying the Criminal Lawyers Association standard, the court found that amicus assistance was not essential for the court to successfully and justly adjudicate the disclosure issue or the merits of the habeas corpus application.

The application for appointment of amicus curiae was dismissed.