S. Friedman

The applicant, charged with sexual offences against his two stepdaughters, sought a stay of proceedings or the exclusion of their evidence under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

He argued his fair trial rights under ss. 7 and 11(d) were breached because the complainants discussed their evidence and contravened an exclusion order during a previous trial that ended in a mistrial.

The court dismissed the application, finding the complainants' conduct did not amount to deliberate collusion or an abuse of process, and that any issues regarding their discussions could be addressed through cross-examination and the assessment of weight at the new trial.

The accused, charged with sexual offences against two complainants, brought an application under s. 276(2) of the Criminal Code to introduce evidence that one of the complainants had sexually assaulted a younger child.

The accused argued this evidence was relevant to the complainant's credibility and motive to fabricate.

The court dismissed the application, finding the evidence had no probative value, engaged the prohibited inferences under s. 276(1), and would cause undue prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

The Receiver of Atlas Block Co. Limited moved for approval of the distribution of net sales proceeds from certain assets between two secured creditors, RBC and BDC, and for approval of its allocation of fees and costs.

BDC objected to the distribution, arguing the purchase price allocation in the approved Asset Purchase Agreements undervalued the real property compared to historic appraisals.

The court rejected BDC's objection, noting BDC had not opposed the sale approval motion and the appraisals were dated and less reliable than the market-tested sale price.

The court also approved the Receiver's pro rata allocation of shared costs, finding it prima facie reasonable and noting BDC's delayed objection.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction acquittal on charges of impaired driving and refusal to provide a breath sample.

The appeal court held that the trial judge applied the wrong legal standard when assessing whether the police officer had reasonable grounds to demand a roadside screening test, requiring proof of probable impairment rather than a reasonable suspicion that alcohol was present in the accused’s body.

The court also found legal errors in the trial judge’s failure to provide reasons for excluding evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter and in dismissing the impaired driving charge without permitting Crown submissions.

Given that the trial judge had already made final determinations on key issues, the matter could not be meaningfully remitted to complete the trial.

The acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered.