Samara Secter

The Crown appealed acquittals on sexual assault and related charges entered by the trial judge.

The complainant, the respondent's biological daughter, testified to two sexual assaults occurring approximately 10-11 years prior when she was 10-11 years old.

The trial judge acquitted on all counts, treating the timeframe alleged in the indictment as an essential element of the offence that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in law by requiring proof of the specific timeframe, as this was not an essential element of the offence.

The court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

The appellant, Martin Bartholomew, appealed his convictions for three counts of assault involving the inappropriate touching of a 13-year-old student.

The appeal raised three grounds: the trial judge's alleged failure to properly consider witness contamination by the complainant's mother, an error in admitting a witness statement as past recollection recorded, and the insufficiency of the trial judge's reasons regarding the complainant's credibility.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge adequately addressed the contamination issue, correctly applied the test for past recollection recorded, and provided sufficient reasons for the convictions.

The applicant, charged with attempting to communicate safeguarded information and preparatory acts under the Security of Information Act, brought a motion challenging the constitutionality of s. 22(1)(c) of the Act.

He argued that the provision violates s. 7 of the Charter by being unconstitutionally overbroad unless interpreted to require an objectively reasonable possibility of committing the underlying offence.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the provision does not cast an unconstitutionally wide net, as the Attorney General's consent is required for prosecution and the de minimis threshold would insulate an accused from guilt based on mere criminal ideation.

The accused, charged with sexual offences, sought access to psychiatric reports about the complainant, which were unsealed exhibits in earlier, unrelated criminal proceedings.

The Ontario Court of Justice denied access, requiring a production application under s. 278.3(1) of the Criminal Code, finding the complainant retained a privacy interest.

The accused applied for certiorari to quash this order.

The Superior Court found that the complainant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the reports, given they were discussed in open court and filed as unsealed exhibits.

The court held that the Dagenais/Mentuck standard for access to court records applied, not the s. 278.1 regime, and granted the certiorari application, ordering the release of the reports to the accused.

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking a person under the age of 18 for the purpose of sexual exploitation, contrary to section 279.011(1) of the Criminal Code.

The victim was a 14-year-old girl who was forced into prostitution over a six-day period.

The court found that while the mandatory minimum sentence of five years was constitutionally valid as applied to the accused's circumstances, the provision violated section 12 of the Charter when considered against reasonable hypotheticals involving less serious conduct.

The court imposed a sentence of four years, less credit for pre-trial custody.