A motion for mistrial was brought by the respondent father in a child protection status review application involving two children.
The father and the Office of the Children's Lawyer sought to overturn the trial on grounds including the agency's failure to promptly disclose a new investigation commenced during trial, alleged Charter rights violations, sequential and redacted disclosure, failure to produce police records, the children's expressed preference for a new trial, and potential judicial bias.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the agency's failure to promptly disclose the investigation was imprudent, the prejudice could be remedied through recalling witnesses for cross-examination.
The court found no fatal wounding of the trial process and determined that a mistrial should only be granted as a last resort in the clearest of cases.
