M. Osadet

The applicant brought a motion for retroactive and ongoing spousal support, and for interim disbursements to question the respondent.

The respondent sought to dismiss the motion, release $100,000 from the sale proceeds of his property, and obtain costs personally against the applicant's lawyer for a previously aborted motion.

The court ordered ongoing spousal support of $1,300 monthly but deferred the retroactive claim due to incomplete financial disclosure.

The court also awarded the applicant $5,000 for interim disbursements, released $50,000 to the respondent, and declined to order costs against the applicant's lawyer.

The accused was charged with multiple firearms offences and aggravated assault following a drive-by shooting that injured a victim.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including wiretap intercepts, video surveillance, and testimony from individuals involved in the local drug trade.

The court found the civilian witnesses credible despite their criminal backgrounds and drug use, and concluded that the accused had the motive, means, and opportunity to commit the offences.

The accused was found guilty on all six counts.

In a first-degree murder prosecution, the defence brought a pre-trial application to remove Crown counsel, alleging prosecutorial misconduct, suppression of evidence, and collusion with police.

The Crown brought an application under Rule 34.02 of the Criminal Proceedings Rules to summarily dismiss the defence's application.

The court found that the defence's allegations were based entirely on suspicion, conjecture, and speculation, lacking any evidentiary foundation.

Applying the principles from R. v. Cody, the court concluded there was no reasonable prospect the defence application could succeed and summarily dismissed it without an evidentiary hearing.

The applicant, charged with marijuana-related offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a breach of his s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay was 33 months.

The court applied the Askov/Morin framework, attributing portions of the delay to inherent time requirements, institutional delay, the Crown, and the defence.

The court found the unjustified delay of almost 15 months fell within the Morin guidelines and that evidence of actual prejudice was weak.

The application was dismissed.

During a sexual assault trial, the complainant began testifying but left the courthouse during cross‑examination after experiencing a mental health crisis and attempting self‑harm.

She was apprehended under the Mental Health Act and involuntarily admitted to hospital for psychiatric assessment.

The court addressed how the trial should proceed while the witness’s ability to complete testimony remained uncertain, noting potential reliance on Criminal Code provisions regarding prior testimony and video‑link evidence if the witness could not return.

The court directed that the trial continue with other evidence that would not prejudice the defence pending the complainant’s anticipated return.