CITATION: R. v. Simpson, 2026 ONSC 2940

COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-0254-00

DATE: 2026-05-20

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

D. Hayton, for the Federal Crown

• and -

DENTON SIMPSON

A. Abbasi, for the Applicant

Applicant

HEARD: May 19, 2026 at Thunder Bay, Ontario

Mr. Justice S.J. Wojciechowski

Application for Remote Trial

1On March 17, 2021, Denton Simpson was charged with possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime under $5,000. In order to address these charges, a 5 day trial has been scheduled to commence on Monday, May 25, 2026.

2On Friday, May 15, 2026, during an appearance in which Denton Simpson made a re-election from a trial before a judge and jury to a trial before a judge alone, his counsel, Ms. A. Abbasi, stated that she intended to bring an application requesting that the 5 day trial commencing May 25, 2026 proceed virtually instead of in-person.

3The application was filed on May 15, 2026, and I heard submissions from Ms. Abbasi on behalf of Denton Simpson, as well as from Ms. D. Hayton on behalf of the Federal Crown.

Evidence in Support of the Application

4There are two affidavits which have been filed in support of the application.

5The first is the affidavit of Ayesha Abbasi, in which she states the reason for the request for a virtual hearing is that:

I have a 14-month-old son. My partner is out of the country due to professional obligations. My childcare is unwilling to travel to Thunder Bay with me.

6Ms. Abbasi confirms that if the application is granted, she can do a virtual trial at her office with Denton Simpson present.

7I note that Ms. Abbasi argued the application on the basis of her own affidavit. Given the simplicity of the evidence which she filed, in addition to there not being any objection to her arguing the matter on the basis of her own affidavit evidence, I did not raise this issue and allowed the application to proceed.

8The second affidavit is that of Denton Simpson, which confirms his understanding that his counsel is seeking a virtual trial due to childcare issues, that he agrees to his matter being tried virtually, and confirms he will attend Ms. Abbasi’s office on each day of the trial.

Position of the Defence

9In her submissions, Ms. Abbasi made clear that the basis for her request related to availability of childcare for her young son. This included the fact that her partner was working out of the country and would not be returning until the end of July 2026.

10Ms. Abbasi noted that this matter was quite dated, and recognized the need to have an adjudication of the charges against Denton Simpson. However, if the application was not granted, she would be seeking instructions to make another application for an adjournment.

Position of the Crown

11The Crown’s main concern with the Defence’s application was that Denton Simpson would appear from Ms. Abbasi’s office and not personally attend the trial.

12The allegations against Denton Simpson arise from events which took place in Thunder Bay, Ontario, and are based upon a set of facts which are not unusual and involve an individual from the GTA traveling to Thunder Bay to sell drugs. Because the community of Thunder Bay has been impacted by these alleged crimes, Denton Simpson should be required to present himself in-person, in the community which has been most impacted by drug related crimes.

13When asked whether the Crown consented to the relief sought, Ms. Hayton confirmed that the Crown did not consent to Denton Simpson participating virtually, but would not oppose the request of Ms. Abbasi to attend the trial via Zoom from her office.

Reply of the Defence

14When asked for any reply, Ms. Abbasi stated that communication issues would arise if Denton Simpson was required to attend in-person and she was permitted to participate virtually in the trial. Because this would inhibit free conversation between Denton Simpson and his counsel, Ms. Abbasi maintained that this was an all or nothing situation, and if both her and Denton Simpson were not permitted to attend virtually, she would likely be seeking an adjournment.

The Law

15Section 715.21 of the Criminal Code (the “Code”) outlines the general principle that “a person who appears at, participates in, or presides at a proceeding shall do so in person”.

16An in-person criminal proceeding is the norm: see R. v. M.Z., 2026 ONCA 4, at para. 53.

17However, in certain circumstances, audio or videoconference proceedings are permitted. This requires the consent of both the Crown and defence. Section 715.233 of the Code states:

The court may, with the consent of the prosecutor and the accused, allow an accused to appear by videoconference at a trial for an indictable offence. However, an accused must not appear by videoconference during a jury trial when evidence is being presented to the jury.

18In cases where the consent of the Crown for a virtual appearance is not provided, s. 715.233 has been interpreted to remove the Court’s discretion over whether an accused can attend a criminal proceeding via Zoom. The decision in R. v. J.M., 2023 ONSC 4243, at para. 24, determined that “consent of all the parties is a precondition before judicial approval may be sought or granted”. Additionally, it would be inappropriate to invoke inherent jurisdiction to override the provisions of s. 715.233 and Parliamentary intent: see J.M., at para. 35.

19Finally, when a court is considering whether to exercise its discretion under this section, it must follow the factors set out in s. 715.23:

Before making a determination to allow or require an accused or offender to appear by audioconference or videoconference under any of sections 715.231 to 715.241, the court must be of the opinion that the appearance by those means would be appropriate having regard to all the circumstances, including:

(a) the location and personal circumstances of the accused or offender;

(b) the costs that would be incurred if the accused or offender were to appear in person;

(c) the suitability of the location from where the accused or offender will appear;

(d) the accused’s or offender’s right to a fair and public hearing; and

(e) the nature and seriousness of the offence.

20This approach is noted in J.M., at para. 12, and M.Z., at para. 54.

Procedural Background

21The procedural background to the case against Denton Simpson includes the indictment dated November 27, 2023.

22After two dates booked for pre-trial did not proceed due to Defence issues, a judicial pre-trial on May 22, 2024 was held.

23A standing application was booked for January 31, 2025, but that did not proceed due to the fact that no materials were uploaded to Case Center by the Defence. The standing application was therefore adjourned, heard on June 13, 2025, and resulted in a decision which did not grant standing.

24In the meantime, on August 26, 2024, this matter was placed on the Running List for September 2025 for the purposes of a trial. However, on February 24, 2025, the trial dates were vacated due to Ms. Abbasi’s anticipated maternity leave, and it was agreed that the trial would proceed in May 2026.

25A further JPT resolution conference was held on July 23, 2025, and the Court confirmed at that time that Denton Simpson’s trial was scheduled for 10 days before a judge and jury during the May 2026 Running List.

26Trial management conferences were conducted on March 23, 2026 and April 16, 2026. It was suggested at the second TMC that Denton Simpson was prepared to re-elect his mode of trial. In addition, the issue of a virtual trial was raised, and the Defence was reminded that trials are presumptively held in-person in the Northwest Region. As such, leave of the Court for a Zoom trial would be required before any departure from this presumption could occur.

27The matter then returned to court on Friday, May 15, 2026, at which appearance Denton Simpson re-elected to have his matter heard by judge alone. Ms. Abbasi also confirmed her intention to bring this application and seek leave to proceed virtually. May 19, 2026 was then booked for 9:00 a.m. to hear this application.

Decision

28This application seeks the virtual attendance of Denton Simpson and his counsel at a trial scheduled to commence in less than a week.

29This trial, scheduled to commence on May 25, 2026, was booked over 14 months ago in February 2025.

30Numerous appearances in this matter have occurred over the past 14 months, with Denton Simpson re-electing to judge alone on May 15, 2026 – 5 days ago – and at that same time communicating a firm intention to bring this application.

31The significance of the re-election is reflected in s. 715.233 of the Code which does not permit an accused’s virtual participation in a jury trial. This application would have been statutorily barred before Friday, May 15, 2026.

32In reviewing the wording of s. 715.233 of the Code, the exercise of the court’s discretion to allow an accused to appear by videoconference at a trial is limited to those circumstances where the Crown consents. This limitation has been recognized in R. v. Mark-Jeffrey Buckley, 2023 ONSC 3968, and R. v. J.M., 2023 ONSC 4232, and I endorse the legal analysis contained in those decisions.

33The Crown has indicated that it will not consent to Denton Simpson attending his trial virtually. On the basis of this position of the Crown, and in the alternative for reasons which follow, Denton Simpson must attend court in Thunder Bay, Ontario for the purposes of his trial which commences Monday, May 25, 2026.

34The Crown also took the position that it would not oppose the request of Ms. Abbasi to attend this trial virtually. Again, for reasons which follow, I am prepared to grant this request.

35The consideration of whether a party may participate virtually in a trial requires a review of the factors in s. 715.23 of the Code, which have been set out earlier in these reasons.

36Before reviewing these factors, reference to decisions from the Ontario Court of Justice which have considered requests for virtual hearings would be useful.

37In R. v. Haaima, 2023 ONCJ 625, Richardson J. had the following to say:

[18] . . . . COVID-19 has taught us that it is important that our public institutions have the capacity to quickly pivot to be able to respond to calamities of all shapes and sizes. Virtual proceedings are an example of how the justice system can quickly react to pandemics, disasters and crises large and small. They also can allow for greater access to justice. Ontario is also a very large and diverse province. It is vital to our democracy that just, equitable, efficient and expeditious justice continue to be dispensed with as little disruption as necessary. Virtual proceedings can allow the system to continue where in person proceedings are impossible.

[19] Additionally, there are cases where an accused person and other justice participants, due to the resources available to them or illness, simply cannot attend court in person. Virtual proceedings can allow for the system to adapt to these realities and in this way allow for greater access to justice. . . .

[20] These are sound public policy reasons that make it clear that the court should continue to have residual discretion to permit one of the parties to apply to the court for an order that their proceeding take place by videoconference. There may be others.

[21] However, this is not a “blank cheque” that is merely available for the asking. Mere convenience to the accused, or to his or her counsel, is not sufficient. Parliament’s clear intention in enacting section 715.21 is that criminal cases are to proceed in person unless there are valid reasons for ordering otherwise. To dislodge the presumption of personal attendance, it is necessary for the accused to ensure that their application offers evidence that meets the circumstances enumerated in section 715.23 of the Criminal Code and any other circumstance that renders proceeding by video conference practicable or impracticable.

38Richardson J. revisited this issue in R. v. G.M., 2024 ONCJ 202, and provided this further analysis:

[19] . . . . conducting trials remotely is not a “best practice”.

[20] The fact that during the pandemic, we “got by” conducting some trials remotely does not mean that we should continue to accept a second-class system, particularly for important trials.

[21] The COVID crisis has ended.

[22] If Parliament intended remote trials to be the norm, it would have amended the Criminal Code to provide so. It did not. Parliament intends in person trials to be the norm. That is why the presumption exists.

[23] Likewise, the Courts of Justice Act sets out an elaborate system for the establishment of courts in the Province on a county or district basis. The business of the people’s courts must be done and be seen to be done in the communities that they serve.

[24] While remote proceedings have their time and place, in my view, it is a highly imperfect and problematic way of proceeding for a lengthy and complex trial.

[25] I’ve often heard it said that proceeding using remote technology enhances access to justice. This is nonsense. It is, at best, a Band-Aid solution. By its very nature this premise accepts that a choice has been made to resource and service smaller communities different than larger ones. Bigger is not better. Technology is not an adequate replacement for local in-person provision of service . . . .

39While the comments of Richardson J. reflect upon the ability of an accused to appear virtually, the consideration of these factors also relates equally to those participants in the justice system beyond the accused.

40Virtual trials are not the norm, and should not become convenient alternatives to an in-person trial. While they worked during the period of the pandemic which was the only mode of hearing that could be safely undertaken, since the days of COVID are behind us, returning to the in-person hearing – a process which has worked well throughout the course of this country’s history – is again the default.

41Criminal cases are to proceed in person unless there are valid reasons for ordering otherwise.

42In considering the factors in s. 715.23, few of them weigh in favour of permitting this matter to proceed virtually.

43The first two circumstances relate to the location and personal circumstances of the accused, and the costs associated with in-person attendance.

44There is no evidence submitted on this application which addresses these factors relative to Denton Simpson. The only evidence submitted relates to Ms. Abbasi’s inability to obtain childcare, which in no way relates to the personal circumstances of Denton Simpson. No evidence was presented which supports his inability to attend his trial in Thunder Bay, Ontario, and there is no suggestion that doing so would be cost prohibitive.

45There is also no evidence which suggests that Denton Simpson would suffer personal hardship from attending his trial personally in Thunder Bay, Ontario. There could be additional costs incurred for having Ms. Abbasi attend Thunder Bay, Ontario for the trial, but that would be related to his personal choice of counsel. The Code does not invite a consideration of costs to be incurred by counsel, and instead directs the inquiry on any additional costs to an accused for the accused’s personal attendance.

46While s. 715.23 does not specifically apply to counsel for an accused, the evidence in support of Ms. Abbasi’s situation is the assertion that her partner is out of the country, and that childcare is not willing to travel to Thunder Bay to care for her 14 month old child.

47There is no evidence filed which provides details on the efforts to obtain childcare, or more facts supporting the personal circumstances of Ms. Abbasi, particularly in light of the fact that she booked this trial over a year ago with specific knowledge that a trial in Thunder Bay would require childcare.

48The third factor of the location’s suitability is addressed in the affidavit evidence by stating that in Ms. Abbasi’s office, there exists a stable internet connection and privacy. Having said that, there is no guarantee that the connection would not become compromised or disconnected, and despite the provision for remote virtual hearings, the Code still requires an accused to be present at all times when witnesses are testifying. I have concerns that the Court’s jurisdiction over this matter could be compromised if, at any time during the 5 days set for trial, the Zoom connection is lost and evidence is led within the hearing without knowing Denton Simpson was effectively no longer present.

49There might be circumstances which warrant overlooking this consideration. None have been presented in this case. Appearing in-person alleviates this concern.

50The fourth factor requires an assessment of Denton Simpson’s right to a fair and public hearing. Again, there is no evidence before me which suggests that a virtual hearing in this matter will promote fairness in this trial that an in-person proceeding would not otherwise provide.

51The Crown has confirmed that the police officers, and the lawyers acting on behalf of the Crown, will be attending personally during the trial. It is therefore possible that the access to the evidence presented by the Crown, including documents and exhibits, would be compromised if Denton Simpson was appearing virtually. While there exists an expectation that if the technology works, Denton Simpson should have the opportunity to review the evidence as it is tendered through Zoom. But clearly this issue would not arise at all if the matter proceeded in-person, and Denton Simpson is in the very court room where all evidence will be presented.

52The other issue in this regard is the manner in which communications will be exchanged between Denton Simpson and his counsel of choice if he is here in Thunder Bay, Ontario and Ms. Abbasi remains in Brampton, Ontario. No evidence and no plan has been presented to address this issue, perhaps because the application seeks both Ms. Abbasi and Denton Simpson to appear virtually from Ms. Abbasi’s office. But if the Defence is relying on technology to conduct a trial virtually, clearly there are ways in which regular communications can occur between Ms. Abbasi and Denton Simpson to ensure compliance with s. 715.243 of the Code. Absent evidence to the contrary, it is assumed that existing telecommunication systems can be used to support solicitor and client communications if Denton Simpson is in Thunder Bay and Ms. Abbasi is not.

53As such, I do not see this as a reasonable basis for allowing Denton Simpson to appear virtually with his counsel in Ms. Abassi’s office.

54The final factor listed in s. 715.23 relates to the nature and seriousness of the offence. Ms. Abbasi did not address this factor in her submissions.

55If a criminal proceeding is complicated, or lengthy, subject to evidence to the contrary, naturally an in-person hearing would be more suited for same.

56Complicated and lengthy matters require more focus and attention to the details, which can be better accomplished in-person.

57These types of hearings may also require increased participation of counsel, with instructions from an accused, in order to navigate and stick handle the issues which may arise over the course of the trial. Doing so with witnesses, Crown counsel and the Defence in the same room makes it more likely that unexpected issues which arise at trial can be dealt with expediently, properly, and with full appreciation of the circumstances.

58Complicated and lengthy hearings presumptively lend themselves to be best addressed through in-person hearings. While this matter is not a 10 week trial, 5 days is more than 2 days, and it must have some degree of complexity to require 5 days to adjudicate.

59In this case, during TMC discussions, I asked the parties whether there was any possibility that any facts could be agreed upon. During one TMC, Ms. Abbasi advised that everything would remain in dispute at the trial.

60At the May 15, 2026 appearance when Denton Simpson re-elected and the issue of this application was raised, I asked again whether the parties anticipated filing an Agreed Statement of Facts at the trial. Of course, no one is obliged to agree to anything, but if possible, clearly it would simplify some of the issues to be adjudicated if there were some agreements reached on non-contentious facts.

61No Agreed Statement of Facts has yet been presented, which, again, is not required. But the absence of same makes the pending trial more complicated and less amenable to a virtual proceeding.

62Finally, the charges against Denton Simpson relate to the trafficking of controlled substances – cocaine – in Thunder Bay, Ontario, a serious crime which the community of Thunder Bay and Northwestern Ontario have been dealing with for years.

63Decisions of this Court and the Ontario Court of Justice have remarked on the significance of the drug trade in Northwestern Ontario, including Thunder Bay. In the cases of R. v. Puentes-Reed & Yousuf, 2023 ONSC 1336, 2023 ONCS 1336, at paras. 24-28, R. v. Samuel-Maragh, 2023 ONCJ 240, at paras. 74-76, and R. v. Bailey-Ricketts, 2024 ONSC 1834, at paras. 41 to 43, the impact of the opioid crisis in Thunder Bay and how this is fueled by non-residents of Thunder Bay is discussed. The Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario’s annual report released in November 2025 indicates that when considering statistics for opioid toxicity mortality rates amongst Public Health Units in Ontario, the Thunder Bay District Health Unit recorded the highest number of deaths throughout the province in 2025. And, in 2024, the deaths within the Thunder Bay District Health Unit territory was exceeded by only two other areas serviced by the Sudbury District Heath and the Porcupine Health Unit.

64The province of Ontario has an opioid toxicity mortality rate per 100,000 population in the first half of 2025 of 8.35, while Thunder Bay’s mortality rate is 39.75 per 100,000.

65These numbers appear to be driven, in part, by the fact that the street prices for drugs in Thunder Bay are significantly higher than the more populous markets of Southern Ontario.

66Justice Scaramuzza noted the following in Samuel-Maragh:

[74] Now, turning to life in the City of Thunder Bay. Thunder Bay’s population is currently estimated to be 113,000. It is the gateway to Northwestern Ontario, including access to many remote communities whether by air or ice roads in winter. The main industries include transportation, manufacturing, education, mining and forestry. There is a significant population of Indigenous Peoples who reside here. The provision of social services to the Thunder Bay population is evident to anyone driving on the downtown streets. High rates of violence are fuelled by people with addictions to alcohol and illicit substances. Some have called Thunder Bay the homicide capital of Canada. There has been an increase in serious drug activity and the influx of drug dealers from the GTA. One only needs to watch the local news on TV or open up the daily newspaper, the Chronicle Journal to learn that drugs and violence are commonplace in Thunder Bay. Shootings are occurring at an alarming rate, the most recent occurring on May 5, 2023 in broad daylight, captured on surveillance, where two sides were shooting at each other in an apartment building’s parking lot.

[75] There appears to be a trend of individuals coming to Thunder Bay and taking advantage of people with drug addictions, many being Indigenous. They trade in drugs and pry on their vulnerabilities using handguns for protection. There is an increasing number of drug traffickers taking over public housing units by using those residences to deal in drugs at the expense of the lawful tenants, many who are addicts and are paid with crumbs of narcotics. Illegal handguns are routinely used to protect those involved in the drug trade.

[76] Again, it must be noted that Thunder Bay is a gateway to many northern communities, in which this court travels to and serves. Thunder Bay becomes the source and the roadway to importing illegal substances into these remote communities. There can be no doubt that families living in these communities are broken. They are threatened and harmed by the influx of narcotics.

67Denton Simpson is presumed to be innocent, and it is up to the Crown to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the offences with which he is charged can be proven.

68However, given the background of alleged drug trafficking which is an ongoing concern in Thunder Bay, the nature of the hearing makes it important that these issues are addressed and resolved in the community.

69This therefore requires an in-person hearing, providing a more effective way in which to receive and review the evidence, and ensuring that justice is seen to be done in the very public forum of the Superior Court of Justice located in Thunder Bay, Ontario.

70For all of these reasons, the application for Denton Simpson to participate in his trial virtually is dismissed, and he shall attend personally in Thunder Bay for the duration of his trial set to commence Monday, May 25, 2026.

71While less than ideal, but acknowledging the ability of Ms. Abbasi to participate virtually in order to recognize the counsel of choice of Denton Simpson, she is granted leave to participate virtually at the trial of her client.

The Hon. Mr. Justice S.J. Wojciechowski