R. v. MacIntosh

R. v. MacIntosh

The court concluded that exclusion of the complainant's evidence, coupled with a reasoned assessment of the remaining evidence and consideration of ameliorative measures, sufficiently redressed the prejudice caused by incomplete cross-examination such that the accused received a fair trial consistent with ss.7 and 11(d) of the Charter; accordingly a stay of proceedings was not warranted and the stay application was dismissed.

Citation
2024 NSPC 20
Parties
Crown: His Majesty the King; Accused: Cody MacIntosh
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Offences / Trial — Decision on Mid Trial Charter Application and Renewed Application for Stay of Proceedings (ss.7,11(d),24(1))
Outcome
Application for stay of proceedings dismissed; complainant's evidence excluded; trial proceeded without stay.
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Right to Fair Trial, Right to Cross Examine, Incomplete Cross Examination, Exclusion of Evidence, Mistake of Age, Consent, Vulnerable Witness Accommodations
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Charter Law Evidence Law Sexual Offences Stay of Proceedings Right to Fair Trial Right to Cross Examine Incomplete Cross Examination +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty the King

Crown

Cody MacIntosh

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Offences / Trial — Decision on Mid Trial Charter Application and Renewed Application for Stay of Proceedings (ss.7,11(d),24(1))

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exclusion of the complainant's evidence redressed prejudice from incomplete cross-examination
  2. 2 Whether a stay of proceedings is required under ss.7, 11(d) and 24(1) of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether the court is precluded from considering a stay after granting an alternative remedy

Ratio Decidendi

The court concluded that exclusion of the complainant's evidence, coupled with a reasoned assessment of the remaining evidence and consideration of ameliorative measures, sufficiently redressed the prejudice caused by incomplete cross-examination such that the accused received a fair trial consistent with ss.7 and 11(d) of the Charter; accordingly a stay of proceedings was not warranted and the stay application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for stay of proceedings dismissed; complainant's evidence excluded; trial proceeded without stay.

Orders

  • Stay of proceedings refused
  • Complainant's evidence excluded from the trial