Nicole Lamphier

This is a ruling on a section 715.1 application by the defendant A.T. to admit a child victim's videotaped statement as evidence in a trial involving allegations of assault.

The Crown opposed, arguing the child did not "describe the acts complained of" as required by the section, as the child denied the alleged assault (hair pulling) in her statement.

The court found that a non-verbal denial (shaking head "no") constitutes a "description" under section 715.1, and that the section does not require an affirmative or guilt-consistent description.

The application was granted, emphasizing the section's purpose to preserve the child's earliest recollection and aid truth discovery, regardless of whether the statement supports the prosecution's theory.

The defendant, Jody Ralph Hall, was charged with two counts of breaching a release order by contacting the complainant and one count of criminally harassing the complainant.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including gift items, handwriting analysis, and surveillance video.

The court applied the principles of circumstantial evidence, requiring that guilt be the only reasonable inference.

The judge found that the Crown failed to prove the defendant's involvement in two of the three alleged incidents beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, the "repeatedly" element of the criminal harassment charge was not met.

All charges were dismissed.

The accused brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay in their first-degree murder and attempted murder trial.

The total delay from charge to anticipated trial end was 37.12 months (1129 days).

The court deducted 98 days for defence delay (preference for consecutive preliminary inquiry dates) and 11 days for judicial illness, resulting in a net delay of 33.53 months (1020 days), which exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court cases.

The Crown argued that the delay was justified by exceptional circumstances, specifically the COVID-19 pandemic and the complexity of the case.

The court found the case to be of moderate complexity and attributed 107 days (3.53 months) of the delay to the COVID-19 pandemic's systemic impact and backlog.

This brought the net delay down to 30 months, falling within the presumptive ceiling.

The court also found that the defence had not demonstrated meaningful and sustained efforts to expedite the proceedings.

Consequently, the application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The offender was convicted of conspiracy to kidnap, conspiracy to commit assault causing bodily harm, and uttering threats.

The offences arose from a plan to abduct and torture a victim over an alleged drug debt, which was thwarted by police intervention.

The court weighed the heinous nature of the planned violence and the offender's role as the ringleader against his limited criminal record and positive community involvement.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 3 years' incarceration, less pre-sentence custody credit.

The defendant was charged with careless driving contrary to Section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act and driving with a suspended licence contrary to Section 53(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant pleaded guilty to the suspended licence charge.

At trial, the court found the defendant guilty of careless driving after determining that the defendant's prolonged and repeated focus on a bee that entered the vehicle, rather than on the roadway and driving, fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable, average, careful driver.

The defendant's inattention led to the vehicle veering onto a gravel shoulder, overcorrecting multiple times, and ultimately rolling three to four times, resulting in two fatalities.

The court found that while the initial swatting at the bee was a reflexive action, the continued focus on the bee beyond that initial moment constituted careless driving.

The accused pleaded guilty to wilfully damaging a van belonging to Bell Media Inc. and being a member of an unlawful assembly during an alcohol-fuelled riot near Fanshawe College in London, Ontario.

The Crown sought a jail sentence of three to six months followed by probation with community service.

The defence argued for a conditional sentence order.

The court imposed an 8-month conditional sentence order with strict terms including house arrest for the first five months, abstinence from alcohol and non-prescription drugs, 50 hours of community service, and mandatory counselling, followed by a 15-month probation order with additional conditions.