P. Vadacchino

During a criminal trial involving multiple accused, the Crown brought a Khelawon application to admit the out-of-court statements of two deceased witnesses for the truth of their contents under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found that the unsworn, audio-recorded telephone statement of a former neighbour lacked both procedural and substantive reliability and was inadmissible.

However, the court admitted the video-recorded statement of a deceased complainant, finding sufficient procedural safeguards and substantive reliability corroborated by other witnesses to overcome hearsay dangers.

During a trial for sexual offences, the defence sought to cross-examine a complainant on alleged prior inconsistent statements recorded in notes made by Family and Children's Services workers, pursuant to s. 11 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The Crown objected, arguing the notes were not verbatim statements.

The court ruled that the notes, being summaries written in the third person and not verified by the complainant, lacked the necessary reliability to be characterized as prior inconsistent statements under the Act.

The defence was permitted to cross-examine on the content of the interviews but could not use the notes as formal prior statements.

This is a sentencing decision for Gordon Edwards, who pleaded guilty to four sexual offences against two minor victims (aged 12 and 15).

The Crown sought a six-year sentence, while the defence proposed three years.

The court emphasized the principles of denunciation and deterrence as primary in cases of sexual violence against children, citing R. v. Friesen.

Despite the offender's rehabilitative efforts and guilty plea, the court imposed a five-year global sentence, comprising three years for offences against one victim and two years consecutively for offences against the other, along with various lifetime and long-term prohibitions and registration requirements.

The applicant, convicted of first-degree murder for orchestrating the contract killing of her mother's common-law partner, applied for a reduction in her 25-year parole ineligibility period under the 'faint hope' clause.

The court conducted a judicial screening to determine if there was a reasonable prospect of success before a jury.

While acknowledging the applicant's good institutional conduct and personal progress, the court found she had not expressed true remorse or accepted full responsibility for her central role in planning the murder.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of lay opinion evidence from a registered nurse and capacity assessor regarding the complainant's capacity to manage her personal care.

The accused opposed the admission, arguing it was irrelevant and potentially prejudicial.

The court applied the principles from Graat and ruled the evidence admissible, finding it relevant to the complainant's condition and helpful to the jury, subject to appropriate limiting instructions.

The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of proposed demonstrative aids, specifically aerial maps of Port Colborne with embedded photographs and property descriptors, for a lengthy trial involving multiple accused and sexual offences.

The accused objected to the necessity of the maps, the accuracy of Google Street View photos, and the prejudicial nature of certain descriptors.

The court allowed the use of the aerial maps with municipal addresses and commercial names, but excluded the embedded photographs and non-neutral descriptors to avoid clutter and potential prejudice.

Four young men were charged with sexual assault and group sexual assault following an incident in which a highly intoxicated eighteen-year-old woman was driven in a car and engaged in sexual contact with three of the four defendants.

The Crown alleged the complainant was incapable of consenting due to extreme intoxication.

The defendants argued the sexual contact was consensual.

The court acquitted all defendants, finding that while the Crown's evidence was more compelling than the defence evidence, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant lacked capacity to consent, that she did not subjectively consent, or that the defendants did not honestly believe in consent.

The judgment emphasizes the high burden of proof in criminal trials and the particular challenges in sexual assault cases involving intoxicated parties.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against his young daughter between April 2016 and January 2017.

The trial proceeded in stages, with the first stage addressing admissibility of the complainant's out-of-court statements under section 715.1 of the Criminal Code and the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The Crown's case relied on the complainant's video-recorded statement to police, her testimony at trial, her statements during play therapy, and her initial spontaneous utterance to her mother.

The defendant's defence was that the complainant had initiated inappropriate sexual contact while he slept and that others, including the complainant's mother and grandfather, were responsible for any sexual abuse or exposure to sexual material.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and compelling, rejected the defendant's narrative, and convicted him on both charges.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against his young daughter between April 2016 and January 2017.

The trial proceeded in three stages.

This decision addresses Stage 1, which involved a voir dire concerning the admissibility of three out-of-court statements by the complainant: an initial utterance to her mother and neighbour, statements and actions during play therapy with a social worker, and a video-recorded statement to police.

The Crown sought to admit these statements under the principled exception to the hearsay rule and section 715.1 of the Criminal Code.

The court ruled all three statements admissible, finding both necessity and threshold reliability were established.

The accused pleaded guilty to five offences involving the sexual abuse of a four-year-old child: sexual interference, invitation to touch for a sexual purpose, making child pornography through text communications, possessing child pornography, and agreeing with the child's mother to commit sexual interference.

The offences occurred over a three-day period in January 2016.

The accused was 27 years old at the time and had no prior criminal record.

The sentencing hearing required the court to balance aggravating factors including the extreme vulnerability of the victim, the planned and deliberate nature of the offences, and the depravity of the text messages, against mitigating factors including guilty pleas, cooperation with authorities, expressions of remorse, and family support.

The court imposed a total sentence of six years less pre-sentence custody credit.

The accused pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing the indictable offence of sexual interference against an eight-year-old child.

The Crown sought imprisonment for four to five years with ancillary orders including a section 161 order, DNA order, SOIRA compliance, and firearms prohibition.

Defence counsel sought imprisonment for two years less one day followed by probation.

The court imposed a sentence of four years imprisonment (46 months plus two months pre-sentence custody credit) with ancillary orders including a 20-year section 161 order, lifetime SOIRA compliance, and a 10-year firearms prohibition.

The court balanced the extremely serious nature of the offence, including the home invasion and sexual assault of a young child, against the accused's youth, first-offender status, genuine remorse, guilty plea, and rehabilitation potential.