The applicant sought severance of six joined counts arising from allegations by four complainants, arguing prejudice from a joint judge-alone trial and limited factual nexus among the allegations.
Applying the severance framework under s. 591 of the Criminal Code and the balancing approach in R. v. Last, the court found a real risk of moral and reasoning prejudice, particularly in relation to the most severe allegations involving bodily harm and forcible confinement.
The court held that a similar fact application remained viable across the allegations, but that the objective basis for the applicant's need to testify was materially stronger on the severed counts.
Balancing prejudice against efficiency and the public interest, the court ordered that the charges involving one complainant be tried separately.
