Nicole Murphy

The Crown applied under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code for an order permitting the complainant in a sexual assault and uttering threats trial to testify remotely via videoconference.

The complainant resided in British Columbia, was pregnant with health issues, and concerned about COVID-19 travel.

The defence conceded the s. 714.1 criteria were met but objected, arguing that remote testimony should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances when credibility is at issue, and that cross-examination with documents/video might be difficult.

The court granted the application, rejecting the "exceptional and compelling circumstances" test for credibility, noting Parliament's amendments to s. 714.1 and courts' extensive experience with virtual testimony.

The court also addressed the practical concerns regarding evidence presentation.

The defendant, E.T., was convicted of criminal harassment under s. 264 of the Criminal Code following relentless contact with the victim after their relationship ended.

The court considered the victim's impact statement, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing principles, with the domestic context being an aggravating factor.

While acknowledging the defendant's rehabilitative efforts and lack of prior record, the court determined that a conditional discharge was disproportionate.

A custodial sentence was within range, but considering the defendant's rehabilitation and the COVID-19 pandemic, the court imposed a fine and probation as the least restrictive sentence to address all factors.

The defendant, Jun Liu, was tried for driving with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit.

While the commission of the offence was conceded, several Charter violations were submitted.

The court found no violations of s.8 (unreasonable search and seizure regarding screening test reliability) or s.10(a) (right to be informed of reasons for arrest).

The court also found no violation of the right to be immediately informed of counsel under s.10(b).

However, the court determined that the police seriously violated Mr. Liu's s.10(b) right to counsel of choice by failing to facilitate consultation with his identified counsel and by not ensuring a meaningful consultation, especially given a language barrier.

Applying the Grant factors, the court concluded that the breath samples, though reliable and critical to the Crown's case, must be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter to maintain confidence in the justice system.

Consequently, the charge was dismissed.

This criminal trial concerned a charge of criminal harassment against the accused, E.T. The complainant, after ending a brief relationship with E.T. due to his controlling and aggressive nature, received over 180 unwanted phone calls and 60 text messages from him, including calls to her workplace, causing her significant distress and fear.

The central issue was whether the complainant's subjective fear for her safety was objectively reasonable.

The court found the complainant to be a credible witness and concluded that the accused's relentless and unwanted contact constituted harassment.

The court determined that the complainant's fear for her safety, encompassing psychological and emotional security, was objectively reasonable given the accused's past behaviour, controlling nature, and persistent contact despite explicit requests to cease.

The Crown successfully proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with driving with a blood alcohol concentration of 80 or higher.

The sole issue at trial was the admissibility of breath results.

The accused alleged violations of s. 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) and s. 10(b) (right to counsel) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found no violation of s. 8 regarding the timing of breath samples ("as soon as practicable").

However, the court found a violation of s. 10(b) because the officer failed to inform the accused of his right to counsel immediately upon arrest, instead waiting eleven minutes.

Applying the s. 24(2) exclusionary analysis from R. v. Grant, the court admitted the evidence, finding the breach was of moderate severity, the impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests was limited, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits was strong.

The accused was found guilty.