M. Purcell

The Crown applied to admit three out-of-court statements made by three witnesses under the past recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule during a trial for first-degree murder.

The statements included a police interview report and two sets of medical notes.

The court applied the four-part test for past recollection recorded, assessing reliability, timeliness, absence of memory, and present voucher for accuracy.

The court admitted the police statement with redactions and one set of medical notes in full, but excluded the psychiatric consult note due to reliability concerns regarding the source of the recorded information.

The Crown brought an application under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code to allow six witnesses to testify remotely at a first-degree murder trial.

The witnesses included one civilian and five medical professionals, two of whom were proposed expert witnesses.

The court granted the application for the civilian witness due to her documented health issues and panic attacks related to traveling.

However, the court dismissed the application for the medical professionals, finding that the presumptive rule of in-person testimony should not be displaced merely for the convenience of busy professionals, especially given the seriousness of the charges and the high materiality of the expert evidence.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter, production of shatter, arson, and drug offences after an explosion in his apartment caused the death of a friend.

The explosion occurred due to the ignition of butane fumes used in the production of shatter.

The court assessed the offender's moral blameworthiness as mid to high range, noting the foreseeable danger of cooking shatter in a residential building.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 6 years in custody, less pre-trial custody credit.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the date of the charge to the anticipated end of the trial was over 40 months.

The court deducted various periods of defence delay, including time for counsel's vacation, adjournments for subsequent charges, and a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The court also deducted time as exceptional circumstances due to the tragic passing of the accused's initial counsel and the resulting second intake period.

After deductions, the net delay fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The court also noted that the transitional exception would apply.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was detained outside a bar after police responded to a report of a firearm.

During a prolonged investigative detention and subsequent searches, including a strip search at the police station where an officer gratuitously stood on his ankles, police found significant quantities of cocaine and crack cocaine.

A handgun was later found nearby.

The court found multiple serious breaches of the accused's ss. 7, 8, and 10 Charter rights.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the drug evidence under s. 24(2).

The accused was found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking and breach of orders, but not guilty of the firearm and proceeds of crime charges due to reasonable doubt.