ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: R. v. McSevney, 2026 ONCJ 288

DATE: 2026 05 25

COURT FILE No.: 4810 999 25 48100616

Toronto Region

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

Ian McSEVNEY

Before Justice C. Faria

Heard on October 14, 2025

Oral Reasons October 14, 2025

Written Reasons for Ruling released on May 25, 2026

Brendan Gould..................................... counsel for the Ontario Securities Commission

The accused Ian McSEVNEY .................................................................. on his own behalf

Faria J.:

I. Introduction

[1] Ian McSevney is charged with fraud (s.126.1) and trading without distributing a prospectus (s.53) between May 2015 and May 2021 contrary to s. 122 (1)(c) of the Securities Act.

[2] The trial is estimated to take four weeks, with the Crown calling over 30 witnesses, and filing a large number of documents as evidence. Mr. McSevney is self-represented. He now lives in the United Kingdon and anticipates calling witnesses in his defence.

[3] The parties made a joint application pursuant to s. 83.1 of the Provincial Offences Act for all parties to participate in the trial by electronic method.

[4] I heard the application and provided brief oral reasons the same day denying the application. The trial shall proceed in person subject to individual applications for specific witnesses to appear remotely.

[5] These are my written reasons.

II. Summary of Evidence

[6] Although no affidavit was filed with the application, I accept Mr. McSevney’s submissions:

i. He now resides in the UK.

ii. He would experience financial strain if he has pay for flights and accommodation in Toronto.

iii. He hopes to continue working during the trial and on weekends which he would be unable to do if he attends his trial in person.

iv. He has a private, quiet location from which he can attend the trial and has a secure, accessible video conference link on his laptop.

[7] Mr. Gould for the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) informed the court that:

i. Only 2 of the over 30 prosecution witnesses are not in the Toronto area, and no one had requested to appear remotely.

ii. He anticipates the documentary evidence to be voluminous and not easy to peruse.

iii. If “at a later stage where re-assignment of court time is no longer possible” and Mr. McSevney is unable to participate remotely, the OSC would seek to hold a trial in absentia”.

iv. The OSC is seeking a custodial sentence if the allegations are proven.

III. Legislation & Legal Principles

[8] Section 83.1(2) of the Provincial Offences Act (POA) allows for any witness, prosecutor, defendant, interpreter or justice to participate in a proceeding my “electronic method” which means video conference in this case.

[9] Section 83.1(3) exempts certain proceedings or steps of proceedings from the presumptive rule, provided they are prescribed by regulation. There are no regulations currently in effect that restrict the availability of electronic participation in the case at bar.

[10] Section 83.1(4) provides that the Justice reserves the right to order parties to appear in person if the justice is satisfied that the interests of justice require it or it is necessary for a fair trial.

[11] There appears to be only two cases that deal with s. 83.1(2). Justice Rondinelli in Toronto (City) v. Noori, 2025 ONCJ 255 found that the justice of the peace should have exercised their authority to proceed with a matter in person pursuant to this section, rather than stay the matter when technical difficulties arose. Justice Goldstein in R. v. Zarwari, 2025 ONSC 3611 found that a jurist must “indicate how an in-person trial was in the interests of justice or was necessary for a fair trial” (at para. 37) when exercising their authority pursuant to s. 83.1(4) given there is a legislative and regulatory gap on what factors should guide the decision.

[12] I therefore turn to statutory language and case law for guiding principles. I will specifically consider the analogous Criminal Code s. 715.23 and the Supreme Court’s articulation of the term “interests of justice”.

[13] Section 715.23 of the Criminal Code states:

715.23 Before making a determination to allow or require an accused or offender to appear by audioconference or videoconference under any of sections 715.231 to 715.241, the court must be of the opinion that the appearance by those means would be appropriate having regard to all the circumstances, including

(a) the location and personal circumstances of the accused or offender;

(b) the costs that would be incurred if the accused or offender were to appear in person;

(c) the suitability of the location from where the accused or offender will appear;

(d) the accused’s or offender’s right to a fair and public hearing; and

(e) the nature and seriousness of the offence.

[14] Writing for the majority in R. v. Cowan, 2021 SCC 45 at paras. 63, Moldaver J. found that the interests of justice include:

i. The interests of the accused.

ii. The interests of the Crown.

iii. Societal concerns.

iv. The integrity of the criminal process.

v. The court’s truth-seeking function.

IV. Analysis

[15] I find the information provided in support of the application unpersuasive.

[16] First, Mr. McSevney intentionally decided to leave Canada knowing he was facing charges that would be adjudicated in Ontario. The Information charging Mr. McSevney was sworn on December 4, 2024, and his first appearance was January 16, 2025. He had a Hamilton Ontario address at the time.

[17] Second, he has an unrealistic expectation of the focus required of him during his trial and the court’s daily timetable. Mr. McSevney wants to take advantage of the 5-hour time difference between the UK and Ontario to continue working during his trial and on weekends. The court will be sitting from 10:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. daily during his trial, not just in the afternoons as his appearances have been thus far scheduled to “accommodate” the time difference.

[18] Third, Mr. McSevney anticipates appearing from a quiet, private location with reliable internet on a laptop but provided no details of the location to be used, nor any details of the technical resources he will have access to in order to participate in this document heavy trial.

[19] Finally, these charges are complex and serious as demonstrated by the number of witnesses, the volume of evidence anticipated, and the custodial disposition the charges may warrant if proven.

[20] Several jurists who considered whether an accused should be permitted to attend their trial while out of the country concluded an in-person trial was required when, like this case:

• The case is lengthy and complicated, R. v. Berent, 2020 MBPC 53.

• The Crown is seeking imprisonment, R. v. Delanusse, 2021 QCCQ, 4604.

• The accused left Canada for business reasons, R. v. Moussalem, 2024 QCCQ 2226.

[21] The court appreciates there is a financial cost to Mr. McSevney to attend his trial in person, but this factor alone, particularly as it is the result of his own decision-making, is not of much weight in this context. The principles of s. 715.23 as applied to this case favour Mr. McSevney’s appearance in person.

[22] Turning to the consideration of the interests of justice and fair trial requirement in this case, these too favour an in-person trial as well.

[23] First, the primary reason for a remote trial request is the financial cost of attending in person. Otherwise, it is not in his interest to proceed with a remote trial for the following reasons.

• Little to no assistance can be provided to Mr. McSevney as a self-represented litigant via a remote trial.

• Technical assistance cannot be provided effectively should any difficulties arise, and much of the disclosure is in digital form.

• Assistance with complicated documentary evidence as it is filed can not be provided easily.

• Opportunities to consult with Duty Counsel, get information from the Officer in Charge, and discuss matters with the Crown as the trial proceeds would all be limited or unavailable during a remote trial.

[24] Moreover, these challenges are compounded by the volume of evidence, the time difference experience of Mr. McSevney and the geographical distance that would likely affect the technical aspects of the lengthy trial.

[25] Second, given the prosecutor and almost all his witnesses are in the Toronto area, the interest of the Crown does not favour a remote trial.

[26] Third, society is interested in the effective and fair trial process proceeding expeditiously, particularly so in lengthy, complex documentary heavy matters. Society has an interest in minimizing the delay that may occur because of technology challenges with a defendant located across the Atlantic in another time zone, a self-represented litigant no less who will require more assistance than a represented one.

[27] Fourth, although both in theory and in practise, a remote trial need not and does not negatively impact the integrity of the criminal process, in this case, with a defendant who chose to leave Canada while facing charges, and whose return would only cause financial strain, permitting a self-represented litigant to proceed remotely weakens the integrity of the process. These are serious charges, and the gravity and complexity of the process is much better and fairly served with all parties attending in person, the self-represented litigant getting the assistance they need, and witnesses attending remotely only subject to specific and substantiated exceptions.

[28] Finally, the court’s truth-seeking function would likely not be affected via a remote trial in this case, but its ability to assist Mr. McSevney as a self-represented litigant is more efficiently done in an in-person trial, and thus the truth-seeking function is better served that way.

V. Conclusion

[29] For the stated reasons, I deny the application and order the parties to appear in person as I am satisfied that the interests of justice so require it in this case.

Released: May 25, 2026

Signed: Justice Cidalia C. G. Faria