Wesley Douglas Beatty

A young person charged with six counts of sexual abuse against two male cousins applied for severance of the counts.

The accused sought to have three counts tried separately from the remaining three counts.

The court considered the criteria established in R v. Last, including general prejudice, legal and factual nexus, complexity, and other factors.

The court found that a legal and factual nexus existed between the counts based on the age of the victims, their relationship to the accused, location, timeframe, and similarity of alleged acts.

The court rejected the severance application, finding that trying all counts together would be in the interests of justice and would not expose the accused to undue prejudice.

Sentencing decision following convictions for impaired operation causing death and driving while disqualified after a snowmobile collision that resulted in the death of a teenage passenger.

The offender had consumed alcohol, operated the vehicle while prohibited, and lost control on a rural roadway, striking a tree.

The court considered victim impact statements, the offender’s criminal record involving prior alcohol-related driving offences, and a presentence report outlining personal circumstances and alcohol misuse.

While the offender had complied with strict bail conditions for several years and had family responsibilities, the court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence in cases of impaired driving causing death.

A penitentiary sentence was imposed together with a lengthy driving prohibition and a DNA order.

The accused brought a pre‑trial motion seeking exclusion of physical evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, arguing it was obtained through searches authorized by a defective general warrant.

The court found the information to obtain the warrant contained irrelevant discreditable conduct, misleading and incomplete information, and unsupported assertions about the accused’s presence near the crime scene, resulting in a breach of s. 8 of the Charter.

Because the CDSA warrant was based on information gathered through execution of the invalid general warrant, it also violated the accused’s s. 8 rights.

Applying the framework from R. v. Grant, the court held that although the Charter breach was serious and intruded upon residential privacy, the police conduct was not deliberate and the evidence was reliable and important to the prosecution.

Balancing these factors, the court declined to exclude the evidence.

In a pretrial motion in a prosecution for attempted murder, the Crown sought to admit several pieces of correspondence involving the accused and officials of a school board where he had been employed as a teacher.

The Crown argued the documents demonstrated animus and motive toward the alleged victim, a school board director.

The defence argued the letters constituted discreditable conduct evidence whose prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value.

The court reviewed the governing principles for admissibility of discreditable conduct evidence, including the balancing of probative value against prejudicial effect and the relevance of motive evidence.

The court concluded the letters were admissible because they were relevant to the accused’s state of mind and motive, and their probative value outweighed any prejudicial impact.

The accused was charged with impaired operation causing death, operating with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg, and operating a motor vehicle while disqualified following a fatal snowmobile collision.

The principal issue at trial was whether the accused or the deceased passenger was driving the snowmobile immediately prior to the collision.

After a lengthy trial involving competing collision reconstruction experts, the court found the physical evidence, injury patterns, and scene analysis supported the Crown’s theory that the accused was driving and that the passenger had been ejected prior to the snowmobile striking a tree.

The court concluded the accused’s blood alcohol concentration was between 120 and 168 mg/100 mL and that his impaired operation was at least a contributing cause of the death.

The defence theories regarding collision mechanics, evidentiary deficiencies, and alleged investigative failures did not raise a reasonable doubt.