Stephen O’Brien

The applicant sought certiorari to quash a committal for trial following a preliminary inquiry on a charge of first degree murder.

He argued the preliminary inquiry judge failed to properly analyze exculpatory evidence relating to identification and timeline, and that there was no evidence of planning and deliberation.

The court reviewed the limited role of a preliminary inquiry judge under s. 548(1) of the Criminal Code and the principles from appellate jurisprudence governing circumstantial evidence at the committal stage.

It concluded the preliminary inquiry judge properly considered the whole of the evidence and did not exceed the limited weighing permitted in circumstantial cases.

The evidence, if believed, was capable of supporting inferences of identity and planning and deliberation, making committal appropriate.

The applicant, charged with first degree murder, sought to vary a s. 516(2) non-communication order to remove his common-law spouse, a material witness for the Crown, from the list of prohibited persons.

The applicant argued the order unfairly interfered with their relationship and their intention to marry.

The court dismissed the application, finding strong evidence that the spouse had previously expressed fear of the applicant, sought police protection, and that the applicant had a history of threatening and counseling the murder of other witnesses.

The court held that the societal interest in protecting witnesses and ensuring a fair trial justified the continued non-communication order.