R. Gregor

During a retrial for first-degree murder, the accused applied to reopen the evidentiary portion of the trial to cross-examine the Crown's principal witness, a Vetrovec witness, about new second-degree murder charges laid against him after he testified.

The court applied the Hayward test and dismissed the application, finding the proposed fresh evidence was not sufficiently relevant to material issues, would cause undue delay, and was unnecessary given the witness's character had already been thoroughly impeached at trial.

The applicant, on trial for first-degree murder, sought disclosure of police records relating to recent murder charges against a key Crown witness.

The records were held by a different police force and Crown office than those prosecuting the applicant.

The court determined that the third-party records regime under O'Connor applied, rather than the first-party Stinchcombe regime, because the prosecuting Crown did not have possession of the records and they were not 'obviously relevant' to the applicant's case.

Applying the O'Connor test, the court found the records were likely relevant to the witness's credibility and ordered their production to the defence.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of first degree murder for the stabbing deaths of two women with whom he had been romantically involved.

The court imposed the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 25 years for each count, to be served concurrently.

The court also imposed a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a no-communication order with the victims' families.

The accused, facing serious charges including aggravated assault and breach of probation, sought bail based on a material change in circumstances, namely a new proposed surety and a stated willingness to undergo alcohol treatment.

The court acknowledged the Gladue factors present but found their impact lessened by the seriousness of the charges.

Given the accused's extensive criminal record, including numerous breaches of court orders and violent offences, the court concluded that the proposed plan did not adequately address the secondary grounds for detention.

Bail was denied.