N. Rozier

During a trial for unlawful act manslaughter arising from a workplace incident involving a compressed air hose, the defence sought to cross-examine the Crown's forensic pathology expert on a statement from a 1942 journal article regarding public perception of the dangers of compressed air.

The Crown objected.

Following a voir dire, the court ruled that the question could not be put to the expert.

The court found that public perception was outside the expert's area of expertise, the 1942 article was of limited reliability for assessing public knowledge in 2015, and the question had no probative value while carrying significant prejudicial effect.

In a manslaughter trial involving three Punjabi Sikh accused, the defence brought a pretrial motion to determine the wording of a challenge for cause question to be put to the jury panel.

The court ruled that a general preamble was sufficient, rejecting a more detailed version proposed by the defence.

The court also held that the question should specifically identify the accused as Punjabi Sikhs, recognizing that prejudice may be triggered by outward manifestations of religious beliefs such as wearing a turban.

Finally, the court exercised its discretion to not provide the question to prospective jurors in advance, preferring spontaneous answers.

The Crown brought a pretrial motion seeking an order for the jury and the court to take a view of the food processing facility where the deceased was fatally injured by a high-pressure air hose during an incident of horseplay.

The Crown sought the view primarily to allow the jury to hear the sound of the air hose.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the facility had undergone significant changes since the incident, the exact conditions could not be recreated, and the jury would have access to high-quality video and audio evidence.

The court concluded that the potential prejudice to the accused outweighed the limited probative value of the view.

During a jury trial for unlawful act manslaughter arising from a workplace incident involving a compressed air hose, the accused applied for a directed verdict of acquittal.

They argued there was no evidence from which a jury could infer that a reasonable person would have objectively foreseen the risk of bodily harm.

The court dismissed the application, finding that evidence including video footage, the sound and power of the air hose, and the bypassing of a safety mechanism provided a sufficient basis for a properly instructed jury to find objective foreseeability of bodily harm.

The accused were charged with unlawful act manslaughter following a workplace incident where a co-worker was fatally injured by a high-pressure air hose.

One of the accused brought a motion to admit expert evidence from an occupational health and safety expert regarding the hazards of compressed air and the need for workplace training.

The court applied the White Burgess framework and dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed evidence regarding domestic law was inadmissible, and the factual evidence lacked probative value and was unnecessary, as the objective standard for manslaughter does not require such specialized knowledge.

The applicants sought certiorari to quash a provincial offences information alleging contraventions of s. 122(1)(c) of the Securities Act, arguing that the Ontario Court of Justice exceeded jurisdiction when it refused to quash a second information sworn without obtaining new prosecutorial consent.

The court held that the impugned ruling concerned the validity of the information and therefore fell within matters for which certiorari relief is barred where an appeal route exists under s. 141(3) of the Provincial Offences Act.

In any event, the court found the justice properly determined that the second information merely split an existing count to reflect statutory amendments and introduced no new offences.

The original consent to prosecute therefore remained valid.

The certiorari application was dismissed.

The accused brought a pre‑trial Charter motion seeking to quash a telewarrant authorizing searches of two properties and to exclude the resulting evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused argued the telewarrant was improperly issued because it was not impracticable to obtain a warrant in person, the information to obtain lacked reasonable and probable grounds, and the police failed to provide full, frank, and fair disclosure.

The court held that the threshold of impracticability under s. 487.1 of the Criminal Code was met after the officer attempted to obtain a warrant in person but was told the justice of the peace lacked time to review the application.

After reviewing alleged omissions and inaccuracies in the ITO, the court found they were either immaterial, typographical, or properly omitted and that the ITO contained sufficient credible and reliable evidence to support the issuing justice’s decision.

Even if a Charter breach had occurred, the evidence would not have been excluded under the s. 24(2) analysis.