Other Key Cases & Takeaways
(1) r. v. veritis, 2024 onca 232
If the trial date is scheduled outside the R. v. Jordan s. 11(b) ceilings and new below-ceiling dates become available, but defence counsel cannot reasonably accommodate them, the delay remains unreasonable.
(2) r. v. n.c., 2024 onca 239
A trial judge must provide sufficient reasons for credibility findings, they cannot be merely conclusory.
A trial judge cannot reject an accused’s evidence solely based on an alleged internal inconsistency, not raised at trial, without first raising it with the parties, explain why they believe it is inconsistent, and give the parties an opportunity to respond.
The trial judge further erred by not addressing the mens rea requirement of sexual assault. At no point in his reasons, did the trial judge make any finding that the Crown had proven the mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, the trial judge simply concluded the actus reus was made out and found the accused guilty of sexual assault. The trial judge was required to turn his mind to whether the necessary mental state (knowing of or being wilfully blind or reckless as to lack of consent) had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt).