Rebecca Meredith

During a jury trial for procuring and related offences, the Crown sought leave to introduce portions of the complainant's prior consistent statements during re-examination to rehabilitate her credibility after cross-examination.

The court applied the test from R. v. Murray and denied the request, finding that the complainant had not claimed her prior statements were lies, but rather offered explanations for inconsistencies.

The court held that admitting the statements would violate the general rule against prior consistent statements and cause prejudice to the accused.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of human trafficking, receiving a material benefit, and procuring.

The court sentenced the offender to 6 years and 2 months for human trafficking and 3 years concurrent for receiving a material benefit, with the procuring charge conditionally stayed.

The court applied the Tang/Miller factors, noting the offender's significant control and coercion over the vulnerable victim over an 18-month period.

The sentence was reduced by 153 days to account for Summers and Duncan credits for harsh pre-sentence custody, as well as mitigation for onerous bail conditions.

The applicant challenged the constitutional validity of s. 577 of the Criminal Code, arguing that the Attorney General's power to direct an indictment without providing reasons or a preliminary hearing violates s. 7 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the application, holding that binding precedent establishes there is no constitutional right to a preliminary hearing and that core prosecutorial discretion, including the decision to direct an indictment, is not subject to routine judicial review absent an abuse of process.

The media parties sought to terminate or vary sealing orders related to Informations to Obtain (ITOs) for search warrants in a high-profile murder and terrorism case.

The Crown and the accused, Nathaniel Veltman, sought to maintain significant restrictions to protect fair trial rights and privacy.

The court applied the Sherman test, finding a serious risk to fair trial rights and privacy due to widespread pre-trial publicity.

The court ordered a publication ban on broad swathes of evidence and a limited sealing order on highly sensitive personal and graphic information, concluding these measures were necessary and proportionate to balance open court principles with fair trial rights and privacy.

The Crown brought a motion for directions to determine whether it could introduce evidence of the young complainant's lack of prior sexual activity in a sexual assault trial, and whether the complainant had standing at the resulting voir dire.

The court held that the Crown may introduce such evidence, subject to the common law Seaboyer principles and the factors in section 276 of the Criminal Code.

The court further held that unlike when an accused seeks to introduce such evidence, the complainant does not have automatic standing to participate in a voir dire when the evidence is led by the Crown.