Mr. D. O’Connor

In this judge-alone criminal trial, the accused faced three assault counts, one sexual assault count, and one unlawful confinement count arising from allegations by a former intimate partner.

The Crown relied solely on the complainant’s evidence.

The court found numerous inconsistencies, omissions, and reliability concerns in that evidence, including contradictions about post-incident contact, prior statements to police, and memory issues linked to drug use and mental state.

While corroboration was not legally required, the absence of corroborative evidence, combined with the cumulative credibility concerns, left the court with a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

On a defence application in a judge-alone criminal trial, the court considered whether charges involving one complainant should be severed from remaining charges involving other complainants.

Applying the interests of justice analysis from R. v. Last, the court weighed prejudice to the accused, the factual and legal nexus between the counts, and the desire to avoid multiple proceedings.

The court found the evidence was not complex, there was no similar fact application, and the charges involving the complainant sought to be severed were not closely connected in any meaningful way to the remaining counts.

The differing complainants, differing charge types, and differing defences outweighed the modest efficiency benefits of a single trial.

Severance was granted.