Stephen Jonathan Moyer Lichti

The accused, Mahmood Ahmad and Salam Fadhil, charged with sexual assault, brought a voir dire application to exclude their statements to police, arguing they were not voluntary due to language comprehension issues.

The court conducted a blended voir dire and found that both accused had sufficient language comprehension in French (for Fadhil) and English (for Ahmad) to understand their rights, including the right to silence and the consequences of speaking to police.

The court dismissed the application, ruling that the statements were voluntary and admissible at trial.

The accused, Salam Fadhil, sought to bring a late Charter application under s. 10(b) and s. 24(2) to exclude his statement to police, alleging a violation of his right to counsel of choice.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing it was untimely and prejudicial.

The court granted the application, finding a valid reason for the late filing and that any prejudice to the Crown could be addressed through procedural accommodations, such as allowing more latitude in cross-examination and a separate voir dire.

The court emphasized that judges should be cautious before dismissing Charter claims due to notice non-compliance, considering factors like the reason for delay, prejudice, and disruption.

Application by defendant Jasmyn Jarrett to join a trial already in progress after she failed to appear on the first day.

The defendant had been arrested on a bench warrant and sought retroactive permission to participate in the trial, having missed the first five days of evidence.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing that the trial had effectively been severed when the Crown proceeded against the three remaining defendants.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Crown has discretion to proceed with co-accused and that allowing the defendant to join retroactively would prejudice the other defendants' right to a timely trial and would require the Crown to have led evidence differently.