Stephen Lichti

The accused, charged with assault and robbery, brought an application for the production of third-party records held by the Victim/Witness Assistance Program.

The application was based on an email from the complainant indicating a desire to withdraw the criminal complaint due to a cultural and community agreement.

The court found that the accused established the likely relevance of the records, as the agreement raised questions about the complainant's motives and credibility.

The court ordered the records produced to the court for review at the second stage of the application.

In a pre-trial ruling for a first-degree murder trial, the court determined that only prospective jurors fully vaccinated against Covid-19 would be permitted to serve.

The judge reasoned that under section 632(c) of the Criminal Code and section 4 of the Juries Act, an unvaccinated person is physically unable to perform the duties of a juror due to the unacceptable risk of viral transmission in the confined jury room during the pandemic's fourth wave.

The court concluded that accommodating unvaccinated jurors was practically impossible and outweighed by the need to protect public health and ensure the trial's completion.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on a charge of driving over 80mg.

The trial judge had acquitted the accused after finding the Crown failed to prove identity and that the accused's section 8 and 9 Charter rights were breached because the arresting officer misspoke the blood alcohol formula.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error by ignoring agreed statements of fact regarding identity, and erred in law in her section 24(2) analysis by excluding the breathalyzer evidence for a minor technical breach.

The accused's cross-appeal alleging a section 10(b) breach was dismissed, as the police exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to contact his counsel of choice.

A new trial was ordered.