R.G.S. Del Frate

The Crown appealed an acquittal on charges involving alleged sexual touching of two minors.

The trial judge had rejected the accused’s evidence as unreliable while fully accepting the complainants’ testimony, yet concluded the Crown had not proven the touching was for a sexual purpose.

The appeal court held that the trial judge’s reasons were insufficient because they failed to explain how, after accepting the complainants’ evidence and rejecting the accused’s testimony, the element of sexual purpose was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.

The absence of analytical reasoning prevented meaningful appellate review under the principles in Sheppard and R.E.M. The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The accused brought a motion seeking a stay of proceedings based on alleged breaches of ss. 7 and 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms arising from pre‑charge and post‑charge delay.

The charges included manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death, and trafficking in a controlled substance following a fatal methadone overdose.

Applying the framework from Morin and related jurisprudence, the court assessed the delay and attributed the majority to inherent and defence causes, finding institutional delay of approximately 5.6 months, within acceptable limits for the Superior Court of Justice.

The court concluded the accused failed to establish sufficient prejudice from the delay to justify a stay of proceedings.

The accused also sought to exclude a statement recorded in a physician’s patient note; the court held the statement was admissible as its probative value was not outweighed by prejudice.

The appellant applied for bail pending appeal following a conviction for care and control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

The appeal alleged several legal errors, including alleged breaches of the right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, improper findings regarding the timing and reliability of breath tests, and failure to properly consider Supreme Court jurisprudence concerning breathalyzer evidence.

Applying s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code, the court assessed whether the appeal was frivolous, whether the applicant would surrender into custody, and whether detention was necessary in the public interest.

The court concluded that although some grounds appeared weak, they raised arguable issues and therefore satisfied the requirement that the appeal not be frivolous.

Bail pending appeal was granted and the driving prohibition was stayed pending the hearing of the appeal.

The accused applied to exclude evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant executed at his residence in a child pornography investigation.

He argued the Information to Obtain contained stale information, lacked full, frank and fair disclosure, and failed to provide sufficient technical evidence supporting reasonable grounds.

The court reviewed the authorization under the Garofoli framework and concluded the issuing justice had sufficient grounds to issue the warrant, relying on the officer’s observations of child pornography files associated with the IP address and explanatory evidence regarding file sharing networks and forensic recovery.

The court held the information was adequate and not misleading, and that reasonable grounds existed to believe evidence would be found.

In the alternative, the court found the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter because the police acted in good faith and the evidence was reliable and crucial to the prosecution.

The Crown applied to the Superior Court for a review of a judicial interim release order that granted bail to the accused with two parental sureties.

The accused faced multiple assault charges against an intimate partner and an alleged breach of a conditional sentence order.

The Crown argued that the justice of the peace erred in approving the parents as sureties because they had previously been aware of the accused’s drug use and had provided medication during withdrawal.

The reviewing judge held that the proper standard was whether the justice of the peace made an error in law, not whether another decision-maker might have reached a different conclusion.

Finding that the justice of the peace carefully assessed the evidence, including a Gladue report and the suitability of the sureties, the court concluded that no legal error occurred and declined to interfere with the bail order.

The parties could not agree on a summer access schedule for their three children.

The father, a school teacher, proposed a week-about schedule where he would care for the children instead of sending them to daycare, while still paying the daycare costs to hold their spots.

The mother objected, arguing the children needed the daycare routine and activities.

The court found that the parents were putting their wishes above the children's best interests and that the father was capable of providing care and education.

The court ordered a week-about summer access schedule to commence immediately.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim in a construction lien action.

The defendant opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion to strike the plaintiff's defence to the counterclaim, arguing the amendments raised new causes of action after the expiry of the limitation period.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding the proposed amendments merely expanded and clarified the original pleadings regarding a joint venture and oral agreements, rather than creating new causes of action.

The court found no prejudice to the defendant, as discoveries had not yet occurred, and dismissed the defendant's cross-motion.