M. Varpio

The self-represented accused applied for a change of venue from Sarnia to Ottawa, arguing that Sarnia lacked a sufficient francophone population for a French jury panel, lacked bilingual court staff, and that Ottawa would be more convenient for his prospective counsel based in Montreal.

The court dismissed the application, finding that census data showed a sufficient bilingual population in Lambton County, the provincial government confirmed bilingual staff would be available, and the convenience of counsel or the accused alone is insufficient to displace the strong presumption that a trial should be held where the offence occurred.

During a jury trial for attempted murder, the trial judge ruled on two issues regarding jury instructions.

First, the judge held that the Crown's cross-examination of the accused regarding his failure to mention self-defence to police violated his right to silence.

The judge instructed the jury to disregard that portion of the cross-examination.

Second, the judge ruled that because the indictment for attempted murder was drafted simpliciter, there were no lesser and included offences to leave with the jury.

The parties sought directions regarding the severance and transfer of property pursuant to a 2011 consent order.

The order required the transfer of approximately 3.43 acres of commercial property, but the parties later discovered only 3.042 acres were zoned commercial.

The defendants agreed to transfer an additional 0.388 acres of residential property to make up the difference, and their counsel undertook to re-zone it to commercial.

The court held that while transferring the mixed-zoned property would substantially comply with the consent order, the defendants were still bound by their counsel's undertaking and must re-zone the 0.388 acres prior to the transfer.