S. Buchanan

During a criminal trial involving multiple accused, the Crown brought a Khelawon application to admit the out-of-court statements of two deceased witnesses for the truth of their contents under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found that the unsworn, audio-recorded telephone statement of a former neighbour lacked both procedural and substantive reliability and was inadmissible.

However, the court admitted the video-recorded statement of a deceased complainant, finding sufficient procedural safeguards and substantive reliability corroborated by other witnesses to overcome hearsay dangers.

During a trial for sexual offences, the defence sought to cross-examine a complainant on alleged prior inconsistent statements recorded in notes made by Family and Children's Services workers, pursuant to s. 11 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The Crown objected, arguing the notes were not verbatim statements.

The court ruled that the notes, being summaries written in the third person and not verified by the complainant, lacked the necessary reliability to be characterized as prior inconsistent statements under the Act.

The defence was permitted to cross-examine on the content of the interviews but could not use the notes as formal prior statements.

The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of lay opinion evidence from a registered nurse and capacity assessor regarding the complainant's capacity to manage her personal care.

The accused opposed the admission, arguing it was irrelevant and potentially prejudicial.

The court applied the principles from Graat and ruled the evidence admissible, finding it relevant to the complainant's condition and helpful to the jury, subject to appropriate limiting instructions.

The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of proposed demonstrative aids, specifically aerial maps of Port Colborne with embedded photographs and property descriptors, for a lengthy trial involving multiple accused and sexual offences.

The accused objected to the necessity of the maps, the accuracy of Google Street View photos, and the prejudicial nature of certain descriptors.

The court allowed the use of the aerial maps with municipal addresses and commercial names, but excluded the embedded photographs and non-neutral descriptors to avoid clutter and potential prejudice.