R. Gemmill

The accused, charged with historical sexual assault, brought an application seeking to delay his s. 276 application regarding the complainant's prior intimate relationship with him until after the complainant's examination-in-chief.

The court dismissed the application, finding that allowing the delay based on a bare-bones notice of application would defeat the spirit and intention of s. 276, prejudice the Crown's ability to prepare, and invite the mischief Parliament sought to address in enacting the provision.

The Crown applied under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code for an order permitting the complainant to testify by video link from New Brunswick at the upcoming trial for gang sexual assault.

The complainant suffers from progressive Multiple Sclerosis, is immunosuppressed, and cannot be vaccinated against COVID-19.

The court found that the complainant's debilitating medical condition, combined with the risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, constituted exceptional circumstances.

The application was granted, allowing the complainant to testify via video link from a secure facility.

The offender pleaded guilty to second degree murder after choking the 62-year-old victim and slashing her throat in her home.

The victim had befriended the offender and loaned him money to support his drug addiction.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted a parole ineligibility period of 17 to 20 years.

The court weighed the brutal nature of the killing, the gross breach of trust, and the offender's callous post-offence conduct against his guilty plea and lack of prior violent record.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 18 years.

The defendant was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon for striking the complainant in the head with a baseball bat outside a pub.

The defendant admitted to the strike but raised self-defence under Criminal Code s. 34.

The court found that the defendant reasonably believed force was being used against him and that his response, while causing serious injury, was objectively reasonable in the circumstances.

The defendant was acquitted.