Ronald Jon Davidson

The accused applied to adjourn a scheduled murder trial pending an intended appeal to the Court of Appeal from a Superior Court decision dismissing a certiorari application to quash his committal for trial.

The applicant argued that the appeal raised significant issues regarding constructive murder and the requirement of subjective foresight of death.

The court held that an accused’s right to appeal does not automatically entitle them to an adjournment of a scheduled murder trial, particularly where there was insufficient evidence that the applicant had taken all reasonable steps to expedite the appeal and funding arrangements.

The court also considered the interests of co-accused who had been in custody for over two years and the public interest in timely trials.

Balancing these factors, the court declined to exercise its discretion to adjourn the proceedings.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference involving a minor complainant.

The appeal argued that the trial judge provided inadequate reasons, improperly scrutinized the accused’s evidence more strictly than the complainant’s, failed to address a major inconsistency arising from statements allegedly made to a friend, and failed to consider possible collusion between the complainant and the witness.

The Superior Court held that the trial judge correctly applied the credibility framework from R. v. W.D. and that appellate courts must defer to credibility findings where the judge has addressed the substance of the issues.

The court found the trial judge had recognized and analyzed the alleged inconsistencies and witness interactions and that the reasons sufficiently explained the credibility conclusions.

The convictions were therefore upheld.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and penalty of dismissal for discreditable conduct, arising from allegations that he engaged in sexual relations with prostitutes while working in the morality squad.

The appellant argued that the charge sheet was defective, that cross-examination was improperly restricted, and that the penalty was too harsh.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the charge sheet was valid, the restricted cross-examination involved irrelevant collateral matters, and the penalty of dismissal was appropriate given the officer's conduct with members of the public with whom he had a professional relationship.

The applicant unions filed pre-hearing displacement applications for certification.

The intervener incumbent union argued the applications were untimely because the Inflation Restraint Act extended the existing collective agreements, thereby closing the 'open period' under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that section 13 of the Inflation Restraint Act extended the collective agreements beyond their normal expiry dates, rendering the applications untimely.

The Board also rejected the argument that this extension violated the freedom of association under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applications were dismissed.