Trevor Lau

During a murder trial, counsel for one co-accused renewed an application to recall two witnesses to testify about the deceased's general reputation for violence and aggression, arguing that the evidentiary basis had changed since both co-accused had now testified.

The court had previously permitted specific Scopelliti evidence of the deceased's prior acts of weaponized intimidation but denied broader character evidence.

The court found that the law and reasons from its prior ruling continued to apply and denied the renewed request, noting that unlike the other co-accused who had established an air of reality for self-defence, the moving co-accused had not satisfied that threshold.

The appellant appealed her summary conviction findings of guilt for assault and assault causing bodily harm, arguing that the trial judge's written reasons, delivered approximately 11 months after the guilty verdicts, should not be considered on appeal as they were divorced from the reasoning that led to the verdicts.

Applying the framework from R. v. Teskey, the appeal court found that the repeated promises of imminent delivery of reasons followed by repeated failures to deliver, the lack of any satisfactory explanation for the delays, the nature of the evidence requiring detailed credibility and factual analysis, and deficiencies in the written reasons themselves constituted cogent evidence rebutting the presumption of judicial integrity.

The Crown conceded that the brief oral reasons at verdict were insufficient for appellate review under R. v. Sheppard.

The convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The defendants brought applications for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay of up to 44 months from arrest to the anticipated completion of their five-week trial.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the delay, while exceeding the presumptive 30-month Jordan ceiling, was justified by exceptional circumstances.

These circumstances included the particular complexity of the multi-accused kidnapping case, which involved extensive investigation, disclosure, and coordination of multiple counsel, and the systemic disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, which profoundly impacted court operations and created significant backlogs.

The court concluded that the Crown and the justice system took all reasonable steps to mitigate delay, and the time taken would not violate the applicants' constitutional right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The young person A.H. was charged with multiple counts of assault, sexual assault, uttering threats, and breach of a lawful order against A.M., a young person with whom he had a brief relationship.

The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of A.M.'s and A.H.'s testimonies, as A.H. denied all allegations.

The court found A.M.'s testimony to be credible and reliable, corroborated by other evidence, and rejected A.H.'s testimony due to inconsistencies and evasiveness.

A.H. was found guilty on all counts.