R. Michael Rodé

On a Crown application in a sexual assault prosecution, the court granted testimonial accommodations permitting the complainant to testify by CCTV and with a support person present.

Applying the post-2015 wording of ss. 486.2 and 486.1 of the Criminal Code, the court held that the relevant threshold is whether the order would facilitate the giving of a full and candid account or otherwise serve the proper administration of justice, not whether exceptional circumstances or necessity were shown.

The court accepted evidence from a treating psychotherapist that the complainant experienced intense anxiety and dissociation when discussing the alleged offences and found those accommodations would reduce distress and make it easier to testify.

The court rejected the submission that credibility assessment or jury fairness would be materially impaired by video testimony.

On a voluntariness voir dire in a prosecution involving sexual assault, forcible confinement, and criminal harassment allegations, the court held that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's videotaped police statement was voluntary.

Applying the established voluntariness framework and the operating mind doctrine, the court found there were no threats, inducements, oppression, or police trickery, and that the accused had spoken with duty counsel and understood he did not have to speak.

The court rejected the argument that anxiety, cerebral palsy, ADHD, depression, or a missed dose of medication undermined the accused's capacity to make a meaningful choice.

The statement was admitted at trial.

The appellant, the mother of Monica Gaumont, appealed a judgment appointing the Public Guardian and Trustee as guardian of Monica's property and personal care.

Monica, age 30, has a form of epilepsy with progressive seizures that have caused cognitive regression.

The application judge found Monica lacked capacity and appointed the PGT as guardian, allowing the appellant to reapply upon important changes in circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on all grounds, finding no procedural unfairness, no error regarding the capacity finding, and no merit to arguments concerning a power of attorney or alternative guardians.

The appellant, found unfit to stand trial, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that rejected a joint submission without explicit prior notice.

The Board imposed a more restrictive disposition than proposed, citing the appellant's ongoing violent behaviour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's probing questions during the hearing provided adequate notice of its concerns regarding the joint submission, satisfying the requirements of procedural fairness.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board finding her incapable of making decisions regarding admission to a care facility.

She argued the Board erred in law and fact, including by allegedly applying a best interests test rather than the statutory capacity test.

The court reviewed the Board’s decision under a reasonableness standard and applied the governing principles from the Supreme Court of Canada regarding capacity to consent.

The court found the Board properly articulated and applied the legal test and that its conclusion that the appellant lacked the ability to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of leaving the care facility was supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and obstruction of justice.

At trial, the complainant was a hostile witness who claimed she could not remember making prior statements.

The trial judge admitted the complainant's out-of-court statements to a nurse and the police under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of threshold reliability and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to grant a writ of habeas corpus regarding his transfer from a minimum to a medium security institution.

The appellant argued the transfer relied on confidential information that was not properly assessed for reliability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the transfer decision was procedurally fair, based on reliable evidence from a security information officer, and not unreasonable.