Peter Rollings

The accused brought a pretrial motion seeking permission to pose a race‑based challenge for cause question to prospective jurors using a multiple‑choice format designed to detect conscious and unconscious racial bias.

The Crown did not oppose a race‑based challenge for cause but objected to the proposed form of questioning.

The court reviewed jurisprudence including the Parks question and later cases considering expanded questioning formats.

The judge concluded that while a race‑based challenge for cause was appropriate, there was no evidentiary basis to depart from the established Parks formulation in favour of a multiple‑choice question.

The court held that the standard Parks question, modified to refer to judging the evidence “fairly,” adequately addressed concerns about potential juror bias without unnecessarily complicating the jury selection process.

The appellant appealed summary conviction findings of guilt for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, uttering threats, and assault.

He argued that as a front-seat passenger he did not operate the vehicle and that the trial judge misapprehended evidence affecting credibility findings.

The court held that the trial judge made no reversible error in assessing credibility and was entitled to accept the taxi driver’s evidence that the appellant grabbed and turned the steering wheel, causing the vehicle to veer into oncoming traffic.

The court found the conduct analogous to circumstances where a passenger assumes control of a vehicle and thereby operates it.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, although the sentence appeal was allowed on joint submission to vary probation to reflect community service already completed.

Media organizations sought certiorari to quash a provincial court judge’s order imposing a partial publication ban and denying access to a video exhibit tendered during a guilty plea for obstruction of justice arising from a detention-centre death.

The applicants argued that the provincial court judge lacked jurisdiction and that the order failed the Dagenais/Mentuck test.

The Superior Court held that the judge presiding over the guilty plea had jurisdiction to consider and grant a publication ban related to the proceeding before him.

The court found that the partial ban appropriately balanced open court principles with the fair trial rights of co‑accused facing related charges.

The court concluded that the order was necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk to the proper administration of justice and that no error of law appeared on the face of the record.