ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
TRAVARN ATKINSON
Before Justice R. Tomovski
Heard on June 29, 2026
Reasons on the Crown’s s. 714.1 Application released on July 2, 2026
Joshua White counsel for the Crown
Nicole DeBellefeuille ….………………...counsel for the defendant Travarn Atkinson
I. INTRODUCTION
1Mr. Atkinson is charged in connection with a shooting incident, including a charge of attempted murder. Pretrial motions and the trial are scheduled to proceed before a judge in the Ontario Court of Justice later this year. The Crown brings an application pursuant to s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code seeking an order permitting certain witnesses to testify remotely by video.
2The Crown submits that several factors support granting the application. One witness is pregnant, another will be on parental leave, and several others reside a considerable distance from the courthouse and airport, making timely and cost-effective travel to attend court difficult. Mr. Atkinson opposes the application. He submits that the serious nature of the charges, coupled with the limitations of remote testimony where credibility is expected to be a central issue at trial, requires that the application be dismissed.
3The Crown has met its burden. In my view, there is a sufficient basis upon which to exercise my discretion to grant the application. Having regard to all the circumstances, I find that it is appropriate to permit all but one of the Crown’s witnesses to testify remotely in light of their personal circumstances. I am further satisfied that remote testimony will neither compromise Mr. Atkinson’s right to a fair trial nor impair his ability to challenge the witnesses’ credibility. Nor will it diminish the truth-seeking function of the trial or the solemnity of the proceedings. My reasons follow.
II. BACKGROUND
A. The Brampton Shooting
4On March 9, 2024, a shooting occurred in Brampton. Surveillance footage captured an unidentified suspect shortly before several shots were fired at the victim. The victim was struck multiple times but survived. The victim is expected to testify in person at trial.
5Although the surveillance footage does not capture the suspect’s face, it provides a general physical description of the suspect and depicts the clothing worn at the time. The identity of the shooter is the main issue at trial.
6Police seized shell casings and an unspent cartridge from the scene. The unspent cartridge had apparently been ejected from the firearm following a misfire. The items were examined and preserved for future forensic comparison. The officers involved in that investigation will testify in person at trial.
B. Mr. Atkinson’s Arrest in Sioux Lookout
7On September 6, 2024, Mr. Atkinson was arrested at a residence in Sioux Lookout, a remote community in northwestern Ontario located approximately a 4.5-hour drive northwest of Thunder Bay. Police attended the residence after receiving a call from S.M., the occupant, who requested assistance in removing his son’s friends from the basement. S.M. permitted the officers to enter the residence. The Crown intends to call S.M. during the pretrial motions, primarily in relation to issues concerning police entry and search.
8Four Sioux Lookout police officers participated in Mr. Atkinson’s arrest and in the subsequent search of the residence. Mr. Atkinson was located in a basement bedroom, crouched between a bed and a dresser, and was arrested. During the search, police discovered and seized a loaded firearm concealed beneath the mattress. The Crown intends to call these officers during the pretrial motions, primarily in relation to issues arising from the arrest and search.
9One of the officers who participated in the arrest has since been transferred to Bracebridge, approximately a two-hour drive north of Brampton.
C. Forensic Evidence
10The firearm seized from the residence was subjected to forensic examination. Testing included DNA analysis, including a comparative analysis using a sample obtained from Mr. Atkinson pursuant to judicial authorization, and firearms comparison testing involving the shell casings and unspent cartridge recovered from the Brampton shooting scene. The Crown intends to call the officer who executed the judicial authorization and two experts from the Centre of Forensic Sciences (“CFS”) in Toronto to present this evidence.
11The Crown relies on two principal forensic conclusions to establish the identity of the shooter. First, that Mr. Atkinson’s DNA was detected on the firearm. Second, that the firearm recovered in Sioux Lookout was the same firearm used in the Brampton shooting. This evidence bears directly on the central issue of identity.
D. Blended Proceedings – Pretrial Motions and Trial
12Mr. Atkinson advances several Charter challenges through the pretrial motions. He seeks, among other remedies, the exclusion of evidence seized by police, including the firearm recovered from beneath the mattress. The pretrial motions are scheduled to proceed over four consecutive days commencing August 31, 2026.
13The parties agree that any evidence adduced during the pretrial motions and ultimately ruled admissible may be relied upon at trial without the need to recall the relevant witnesses.
14The trial is scheduled for six days commencing December 14, 2026. As noted, the main issue at trial is the identity of the shooter.
15I accept Mr. Atkinson’s submission that credibility will be an important consideration at both the pretrial motions and the trial.
E. Remote versus In-person Testimony
16The Crown proposes that S.M. and the Sioux Lookout officers testify remotely from a private room at the Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”) detachment in Sioux Lookout. The room is equipped with technology capable of facilitating remote testimony.
17The Crown did not adduce evidence regarding the location from which the Bracebridge officer would testify, nor regarding the suitability of the technology proposed for that witness’s remote participation.
18One Sioux Lookout officer is currently pregnant and will be on parental leave during both the pretrial motions and the trial. A second Sioux Lookout officer will also be on parental leave at those times. Both officers have specifically requested permission to testify remotely while on leave.
III. ANALYSIS
A. The Section 714.1 Factors
19Section 714.1 of the Criminal Code permits a court to authorize a witness located in Canada to testify remotely by video. In the absence of such an order, witness testimony is presumptively given in person: R. v. DMS, 2025 MBCA 16 at para. 70.
20The decision whether to permit remote testimony is discretionary. It does not require exceptional circumstances, even where credibility is expected to be a significant issue at trial: DMS at paras. 37, 79 and 97-99; R. v. JLK, 2023 BCCA 87 at para. 67; R. v. Metcalfe, 2018 ONSC 4925 at para. 14; R. v. Reaves, 2026 ONCJ 281 at para. 16; R. v. Rutaihwa, 2020 ONCJ 470 at paras. 14-16. The court must consider whether permitting the witness to testify remotely by video “would be appropriate having regard to all the circumstances”. In making that determination, the court must consider the non-exhaustive factors set out in s. 714.1, including:
(1) the location and personal circumstances of the witness
(2) the costs that would be incurred if the witness were to appear in person
(3) the nature of the witness’ anticipated evidence
(4) the suitability of the location from where the witness will give evidence
(5) the accused’s right to a fair and public hearing
(6) the nature and seriousness of the offence
21The ability of an accused to confront and challenge the evidence of adverse witnesses is no longer dependent upon their physical presence in the courtroom. Modern technology used for remote video testimony is widely available and routinely used throughout this and many other jurisdictions. When properly implemented, it permits all parties to the proceeding – including the accused – to see and hear the witness clearly, while preserving the ability to test the evidence through cross-examination and to assess the witness’s demeanour and credibility: DMS at para. 83; R. v. Antoine et al., 2026 ONSC 3377 at paras. 9, 16; R. v. Mattu, 2019 ONCJ 517 at paras. 12-14. The administration of justice must be capable of adapting to technological developments, provided that the fairness of the proceedings and the rights of the accused remain safeguarded. Remote testimony, where appropriate in the circumstances, represents one such development.
B. The Section 714.1 Factors Applied
22Although Mr. Atkinson initially opposed any Crown witness testifying remotely, he now consents to the two CFS witnesses testifying remotely by video. That concession reflects the nature of their anticipated evidence, which is primarily expert and technical and does not engage the same credibility concerns as the evidence of S.M. and the police witnesses. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the two CFS witnesses should be permitted to testify remotely by video.
23With respect to the remaining witnesses, I find that permitting all but one to testify remotely by video would be appropriate having regard to all of the circumstances.
24The exception is the officer now stationed in Bracebridge. The Crown led no evidence regarding the suitability of the location from which that officer would testify or the technology that would be used to facilitate the testimony. Further, unlike the Sioux Lookout witnesses, the Bracebridge officer is no longer posted in a remote community and does not face the same significant travel-related burdens in attending court. Attendance would require only a relatively modest drive to and from Brampton, rather than extensive travel involving both ground and air travel. In these circumstances, the evidentiary foundation necessary to justify remote testimony has not been established.
25In the circumstances of this case, the principal factor weighing against remote testimony is the nature and seriousness of the charges. Attempted murder committed with a firearm is among the most serious offences known to the criminal law. It carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. If Mr. Atkinson were convicted, the allegations – namely, a close-range shooting in which the victim was struck multiple times – would potentially attract a significant custodial sentence.
26Several other factors, however, favour permitting the remaining witnesses to testify remotely by video.
27First, I am satisfied that the proposed location for the Sioux Lookout witnesses is suitable. The witnesses will testify from a private room within the OPP detachment in Sioux Lookout, a location from which, I am advised, witnesses have testified previously: see DMS at para. 101. I am also satisfied that the technology available at that location, including high-speed internet, videoconferencing capability, and appropriate audio equipment, is sufficient to permit reliable and effective remote testimony.
28Second, the location of the witnesses and the practical burdens associated with travel strongly favour remote attendance. Sioux Lookout is a remote northern Ontario community. Requiring the witnesses to attend in person would entail substantial travel time, inconvenience, and expense beyond that ordinarily associated with court attendance. In winter conditions, the witnesses would likely be required to travel several hours by road to reach an airport before flying to this region, with similar travel obligations for their return. In-person attendance would likely require multiple days away from work and personal commitments. Remote testimony, by contrast, could be completed in a single day with minimal travel and significantly reduced expense. The costs associated with in-person attendance would be substantially greater than those associated with remote testimony.
29Third, the personal circumstances of two of the officers provide additional support for remote attendance. One officer will have recently given birth and will be on parental leave caring for a newborn child. A second officer will likewise be on parental leave. These are reasonable and compelling personal circumstances that further support permitting those witnesses to testify remotely by video.
30Finally, I am not persuaded that permitting remote testimony in these circumstances would compromise Mr. Atkinson's right to a fair trial, notwithstanding that credibility will be an important issue. As observed in DMS, a fair trial is not synonymous with a perfect trial. The proposed video technology will permit Mr. Atkinson, counsel, and the court to see and hear the witnesses clearly. Mr. Atkinson will retain the full ability to cross-examine the witnesses, challenge their evidence, and advance his defence on all issues in dispute, including identification and credibility.
C. Terms of the Order
31The remote testimony shall proceed on the following terms:
(1) The witnesses shall testify by video
(2) The witnesses shall testify from a private room at the OPP detachment in Sioux Lookout
(3) Each witness shall give their evidence with the door closed and with no other person present in the room
(4) No witness shall have access to any documents or other materials while testifying unless authorized to do so by the presiding judge
32These terms can be varied upon application by either party should circumstances require during the pretrial motions or the trial.
IV. CONCLUSION
33The Crown has discharged its burden. Having regard to all of the circumstances, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to permit all of the Crown’s proposed witnesses, with the exception of the Bracebridge officer, to testify remotely by video.
34The Crown’s application under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code is therefore granted.
Released: July 2, 2026
Signed: Justice Tomovski