Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- bc:r._c._trottier_2021_bcsc_2697 [2026/07/09 18:25] – created - external edit 127.0.0.1
+++ bc:r._c._trottier_2021_bcsc_2697 [2026/08/21 22:34] (current) – victorzhou
@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 [6] Mr. Deschamps emphasizes that Mr. Fournier is an important eyewitness for the Crown who was with the accused and the complainant on the night of the events in question. Additionally, the Crown submits that Mr. Fournier will give testimony on the conversation he and the accused had that night, during which Mr. Fournier told the accused to stop making gestures towards the complainant. According to the Crown, this conversation between the accused and Mr. Fournier is important evidence.
-[7] The accused's counsel, Mr. Garih, highlights the conventional practice that a witness should testify in the courtroom to allow the court to hear the testimony and observe how the witness behaves at the witness stand, especially during cross-interrogation.
+[7] The accused's counsel, Mr. Garih, highlights the conventional practice that a witness should testify in the courtroom to allow the court to hear the testimony and observe how the witness behaves at the witness stand, especially during cross-examination.
 [8] Furthermore, the accused submits that the Crown's evidence on this application is manifestly insufficient to support the order sought. In this regard, Mr. Garih argues that Mr. Fournier does not claim to be in poor health such that he is more susceptible to contracting the virus and that the Crown's alleged consequences of a journey to Vancouver are vague and insufficient.
@@ Line 106: / Line 106: @@
 [18] The Crown estimates that Mr. Fournier's trip would cost around $2,150. Given the nature and seriousness of the alleged offence and the fact that Mr. Fournier is a key witness for the Crown, I find that the costs of the travel are not a determinative factor in this case.
-[19] On the other hand, the nature of Mr. Fournier's testimony is without doubt crucial. The Crown expects that during his testimony, he will tell the jury what he saw on the night in question, including the accused's gestures towards the complainant. He will also describe what the accused said to him about the complainant. This testimony is undoubtedly key for the Crown but there is no indication that there is an issue with Mr. Fournier's credibility or that the accused will question the same. In my opinion, the fact that Mr. Fournier will not be in the courtroom and that he will testify by videoconference does not prejudice the accused and in particular will not affect his ability to carry a complete and vigorous cross-examination. I come to this conclusion even in consideration of the nature and seriousness of the offence and the accused's right to a fair and public trial.
+[19] On the other hand, the nature of Mr. Fournier's testimony is without doubt crucial. The Crown expects that during his testimony, he will tell the jury what he saw on the night in question, including the accused's gestures towards the complainant. He will also describe what the accused said to him about the complainant. This testimony is undoubtedly key for the Crown but there is no indication that there is an issue with Mr. Fournier's credibility or that the accused will question the same. In my opinion, the fact that Mr. Fournier will not be in the courtroom and that he will testify by videoconference does not prejudice the accused and in particular will not affect his ability to carry out a complete and vigorous cross-examination. I come to this conclusion even in consideration of the nature and seriousness of the offence and the accused's right to a fair and public trial.
-[20] The Crown proposes that Mr. Fournier testify from a room in the house where he resides. Additionally, Mr. Deschamps has indicated that he tested the MS Teams videoconferencing software with Mr. Fournier and that the results of the test were excellent, in that the connection was clear and there were no problems with neither his microphone nor his camera. I accept Mr. Deschamp's observations. In light of Mr. Fournier's circumstances and the national public health crisis caused by the pandemic, I accept that the proposed place and manner of Mr. Fournier's testimony are sufficient to ensure a just and fair trial.
+[20] The Crown proposes that Mr. Fournier testify from a room in the house where he resides. Additionally, Mr. Deschamps has indicated that he tested the MS Teams videoconferencing software with Mr. Fournier and that the results of the test were excellent, in that the connection was clear and there were no problems with either his microphone or his camera. I accept Mr. Deschamps' observations. In light of Mr. Fournier's circumstances and the national public health crisis caused by the pandemic, I accept that the proposed place and manner of Mr. Fournier's testimony are sufficient to ensure a just and fair trial.
 [21] That being said, and with the remarks of the Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia in //S.D.L.// in mind, I emphasize that I will be vigilant during Mr. Fournier's testimony to assure that the audio and video quality are sufficient. If, for some reason, the videoconferencing software is unable to maintain sufficient audio and video quality, I would be ready to reconsider the order and declare that Mr. Fournier must testify in person before the jury.