The court denied a defence adjournment of a voir dire on third-party MCFD records, finding the request unreasonable given prior delay, an imminent jury trial, and known issues that had not been pursued earlier.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crownâs appeal and upheld a new trial after finding errors in disclosure, evidence assessment, and expert testimony.
The application to expand access is dismissed because the applicant did not establish the requisite material or pivotal change in circumstances since the Court of Appeal order; alternatively, on the merits the evidence demonstrates that increased access would not be in the best interests of the children given their ages, maturity, expressed wishes (lack of response), and stable, supportive living arrangements; existing corollary relief orders and Court of Appeal provisions remain in force, including restriction on access to third-party records; costs awarded and a 12âmonth bar on filing a notâŚ
The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish likely relevance for narrative records under s.278.3(4) and case law; although treatment records narrowly addressing causation of the complainant's hemorrhoids met the Stage 1 threshold, judicial review of the sealed records at Stage 2 found no portions that were likely relevant or necessary in the interests of justice, so no records were produced and the records were resealed.
The court dismissed an application for disclosure of PRIME metadata, finding the defence had not shown sufficient relevance. It ordered a review for any missing officer text statements.
The court ordered limited disclosure of Money Mart records relating to Crown witness Lynn Ellingsen, with redactions to protect unrelated personal and banking information.