Shannon O’Connor

The accused, a project manager on a balcony restoration project, was charged with four counts of criminal negligence causing death and one count of criminal negligence causing bodily harm after a swing stage collapsed, causing five workers to fall 100 feet.

The court found that the accused had the authority to direct the workers and breached his duty under s. 217.1 of the Criminal Code by permitting six workers to board the swing stage when he knew there were only two lifelines available.

The court held that this failure constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonable supervisor, showing wanton and reckless disregard for the workers' lives and safety.

The accused's negligence was found to be a significant contributing cause of the deaths and injuries, and he was found guilty on all counts.

Sentencing following convictions for multiple counts of touching a person under 16 for a sexual purpose involving elementary school students.

The offender, an occasional teacher, engaged in repeated inappropriate touching of several grade three girls in classroom settings while in a position of authority.

The court considered aggravating factors including multiple complainants, breach of trust, grooming behaviour, and psychological harm to the victims, while mitigating factors included the offender’s lack of prior record and community contributions.

Emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence for sexual offences against children, the court imposed a custodial sentence.

A global sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment followed by two years’ probation was ordered, along with ancillary prohibitions and sex offender registration.

The Crown brought a similar fact application in a criminal trial involving allegations that an elementary school teacher sexually touched several young students.

The Crown sought to have the testimony of certain complainants admitted as circumstantial evidence supporting the allegations of other complainants.

Applying the framework from R. v. Handy, the court considered whether the proposed evidence had sufficient probative value to outweigh its prejudicial effect.

The court found that many of the alleged incidents were only generically similar and therefore did not meet the threshold for admissibility.

However, evidence of three specific incidents involving classroom demonstrations and physical manipulation of students was sufficiently similar and reliable to be admitted as similar fact evidence.

In a criminal prosecution involving multiple sexual offence allegations against a teacher, the defence sought to admit the accused’s out-of-court statements to police as evidence of his reaction to the accusations pursuant to the exception recognized in R. v. Edgar.

The court considered whether the statements qualified as spontaneous prior consistent statements capable of admission for credibility purposes.

Applying appellate authority, the court held that the spontaneity requirement was not met where the accused had significant time to reflect, consult others, receive legal advice, and prepare a written account before speaking to police.

Because the statements were not made upon first confrontation with the allegation and were preceded by hours of deliberation, they could not be admitted under the Edgar exception.

In a criminal proceeding involving allegations of sexual offences against students, the accused sought to introduce evidence that he offered to take a polygraph test during a police interview.

The defence argued that the offer demonstrated consciousness of innocence and constituted admissible after-the-fact conduct.

The court reviewed the governing principles from appellate authority concerning prior consistent statements and the limited probative value of offers to take polygraph tests.

It held that such an offer, particularly where the accused had received legal advice and the results would be inadmissible, was essentially a self-serving protestation of innocence with no meaningful probative value.

The court concluded that the evidence would risk prejudicing the trial process and dismissed the application to admit it.

The Crown sought certiorari to quash a preliminary inquiry decision discharging the accused on a charge of sexual exploitation while committing him to trial on related sexual offences.

The reviewing court considered whether the preliminary inquiry judge committed a jurisdictional error by failing to consider the whole of the evidence when assessing whether a relationship of trust or authority existed between the accused and the complainant.

The court found the judge overlooked evidence supporting an inference that the accused occupied a position of trust, including parental permission for overnight visits and the accused’s own statements assuming a “big brother” role.

The failure to consider this evidence constituted jurisdictional error.

The discharge was quashed and the accused was ordered committed to stand trial on the sexual exploitation charge.