Tara Schuck

The Crown applied to admit hearsay statements of a deceased witness, Sarah Jane Bluecoat, in a first-degree murder trial.

Ms. Bluecoat's statements were taken on May 2, 2019 (typed Q&A), and later adopted under oath and video-recorded on August 3, 2021, after she initially declined on July 14, 2021.

The accused opposed the admission, arguing that necessity was not met due to the Crown's failure to preserve cross-examination rights (e.g., by proceeding with a preliminary inquiry or using s. 709 of the Criminal Code) and that the statements lacked threshold reliability.

The court found that necessity was established by the witness's death, distinguishing the case from prosecutorial "neglect." The court further found that both substantive and procedural reliability were met, allowing the jury a satisfactory basis to evaluate the evidence, despite the absence of contemporaneous cross-examination.

The Crown's application was granted.

The accused was charged with impaired operation and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg.

At trial, the impaired operation count was withdrawn.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging violations of his s. 10(b) right to counsel.

The court found multiple breaches of the accused's right to counsel, including the police officer's failure to properly inform the accused of the police obligation to wait a reasonable time for counsel of choice to call back, failure to wait a reasonable time before contacting duty counsel, failure to facilitate contact with counsel of choice by not searching the internet for alternate numbers, and failure to provide the result of the first breath sample before taking the second.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the breath evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter and acquitted the accused.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to public peace, and assault with a weapon.

The incident occurred in a Subway restaurant parking lot in Ignace, Ontario, when the accused, a United States resident, became angry after nearly colliding with the complainant's large logging truck.

The accused pursued the complainant in her vehicle multiple times, displayed a Leatherman multi-tool knife, and made threatening statements.

The court found the accused guilty of dangerous driving and possession of a weapon dangerous, but conditionally stayed the assault with a weapon charge under the Kienapple Principle.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography contrary to Section 163.1 of the Criminal Code.

He possessed 535 images and 31 pornographic digital movies depicting the sexual abuse of pre-pubescent children.

The Crown sought a reformatory term while the defence sought the 45-day minimum sentence to be served intermittently.

The court imposed a sentence of 15 months imprisonment followed by two years probation, a 10-year Section 161 order, DNA sampling, and 20-year Sexual Offender Information Registry placement.

The court found that the minimum sentence was inappropriate given the gravity of the offence and the accused's lack of insight into the seriousness of his conduct.

The accused was charged with luring a child for a sexual purpose contrary to section 172.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown amended the charge during trial to section 172.1(1)(b).

The accused communicated with two young complainants via Facebook and text messages, sending sexually explicit messages and a photograph of his genitals.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, having proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he intentionally communicated by computer with persons he knew to be under the age of fourteen for the specific purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault against a friend of his daughter.

The Crown conceded there was insufficient evidence for one count, resulting in an acquittal.

On the remaining count, the complainant alleged the accused provided her with alcohol until she was highly intoxicated and then sexually assaulted her at his camp.

The accused denied the allegations.

Applying the W. (D.) framework for assessing credibility, the trial judge found the complainant's evidence problematic and contradicted by the agreed statement of facts from the accused's daughter.

The court concluded the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

The accused was charged with sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code arising from an alleged non‑consensual sexual encounter in the accused’s residence.

The complainant testified that the accused forced intercourse after preventing her from leaving, while the accused maintained the encounter was consensual.

Evidence revealed inconsistencies in the complainant’s prior statements and testimony, particularly regarding the presence of a third party in the small residence during the alleged assault.

Applying the credibility framework in R. v. W.(D.), the court rejected the accused’s evidence but found that the totality of the evidence, including the third‑party witness testimony, left a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.