Court Information
Date: October 19, 2020
Information No.: 19-15006104
Ontario Court of Justice
Her Majesty the Queen v. Idowu O. Ajanaku
Ruling
Before the Honourable Justice D. Moore
on October 19, 2020 at Toronto, Ontario
Appearances
- T. Potts, Counsel for the Crown
- Idowu O. Ajanaku, Self-Represented
Ruling
MOORE, J. (Orally):
Mr. Ajanaku is before me today for the first of two days of trial on the charge of refusing to provide a sample into a roadside screening device, contrary to Section 320.15 of the Criminal Code. At the outset of the trial, the Crown has applied for an adjournment of the proceedings based on the inability of Police Constable Toms, the key Crown witness who made the demand and attempted to administer the test, to attend court today.
I have been advised that Officer Toms has taken a Covid test for Covid-19 and has been instructed to isolate at home. This, of course, is a perfectly reasonable explanation for not attending court in person.
I have further been advised that the officer is not currently experiencing any symptoms and it appears that he would have the ability to attend court by way of Zoom. I am sure he does not have his original notes at home with him but those could easily be emailed. We are fortunate enough to be in 510 court, which has the capacity to conduct a "hybrid" trial, with some participants in the courtroom and others, in this case the officer, appearing remotely.
I am advised that the reason Officer Toms cannot testify from his home is the directive or policy from a senior command of the Toronto Police Service, that prohibits Toronto Police officers from testifying remotely, unless they are in a courthouse using a computer provided by the Ministry of the Attorney General. Essentially the Toronto Police Service is insisting that its officers attend in person to testify, entering the courthouse, and coming into contact with numerous people in the courthouse. A copy of the policy has been made Exhibit A on this adjournment application. This policy is contrary to existing public health policy, which is to minimize or avoid in person contact whenever possible.
Mr. Ajanaku is representing himself. He is here in person today and wishes to proceed with his trial. He has taken time off work today and tomorrow for his trial.
The offence date is August 24th, 2019, just under 14 months ago. If the adjournment is granted his next trial date will likely not be until sometime in the spring or perhaps the summer of 2021.
I have not been advised of the purpose behind the TPS policy. I find it very troubling. All participants in the justice system have been working extremely hard to allow trials to continue during the pandemic while making best efforts to do so safely. The TPS policy orders witnesses not to attend court remotely. Dissuading witnesses from testifying is a very serious matter.
During the course of the last few months many justice participants: judges, counsel, witnesses, and accused, have participated from their homes using their own computer equipment. Many prefer this form of participation to minimize their own risk or exposure, for others it is a necessity as attending in person is too risky for their health or the health of others.
In these circumstances I am not satisfied that Officer Toms is unable to attend court to give evidence by Zoom. The Crown's application for adjournment is dismissed.