R. Amy

The Crown applied to admit three out-of-court statements made by three witnesses under the past recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule during a trial for first-degree murder.

The statements included a police interview report and two sets of medical notes.

The court applied the four-part test for past recollection recorded, assessing reliability, timeliness, absence of memory, and present voucher for accuracy.

The court admitted the police statement with redactions and one set of medical notes in full, but excluded the psychiatric consult note due to reliability concerns regarding the source of the recorded information.

The Crown applied to have the young person sentenced as an adult after she pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to murder, uttering threats, and breaching a detention order.

The young person was 16 years old when she repeatedly lied to police to protect the perpetrators of a brutal murder and dismemberment.

The court found that the Crown failed to rebut the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness, noting the young person's vulnerability, mental health struggles, and adolescent immaturity at the time of the offence.

The application for an adult sentence was dismissed, and the young person was sentenced to 18 months of secure custody followed by 9 months of supervision, taking into account 19.5 months of pre-sentence custody.

The Crown brought an application under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code to allow six witnesses to testify remotely at a first-degree murder trial.

The witnesses included one civilian and five medical professionals, two of whom were proposed expert witnesses.

The court granted the application for the civilian witness due to her documented health issues and panic attacks related to traveling.

However, the court dismissed the application for the medical professionals, finding that the presumptive rule of in-person testimony should not be displaced merely for the convenience of busy professionals, especially given the seriousness of the charges and the high materiality of the expert evidence.

The accused applied for a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code following a detention order based on the secondary ground.

He argued the Justice of the Peace erred in assessing the strength of the Crown's case and presented a new release plan as a material change in circumstances.

The court found no error by the Justice of the Peace.

While the new release plan constituted a change in circumstances, the court held that the accused's extensive criminal record, lack of treatment for substance abuse, and the unsuitability of the proposed residence and surety justified his continued detention on the secondary ground.

The application for judicial interim release was denied.

The accused were charged with possession of property obtained by crime exceeding $5,000 and related curfew breaches following a break and enter at a lumber store.

The Crown’s case relied primarily on the testimony of an accomplice who admitted he initially lied to police and later implicated the accused after negotiating a plea deal in exchange for a discharge.

Applying the principles underlying a Vetrovec warning, the court treated the accomplice as an unsavoury and unreliable witness whose evidence required careful scrutiny.

The alleged confirmatory evidence, including a stolen cheque found in a van and evidence of a phone call requesting use of the van, was found insufficient to independently confirm the witness’s account of the accused’s involvement.

The Crown therefore failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.