|
Criminal - Disclosure (2). R. v. Bauman
In R. v. Bauman (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a criminal appeal, here brought against convictions in "two counts of first degree murder".
The court considered an issue of 'lost evidence', here in the context of the Crown's disclosure duties:[114] The Crown’s duty of disclosure carries with it an obligation to preserve relevant evidence. Where the original form of the evidence is no longer available, the Crown must provide an explanation. “If the explanation establishes that the evidence has not been destroyed or lost owing to unacceptable negligence, the duty to disclose has not been breached”: R. v. Bero (2000), 2000 CanLII 16956 (ON CA), 151 C.C.C. (3d) 545 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 30.
[115] The trial judge’s finding that the Crown had provided a satisfactory explanation for the non-availability of the bone itself, and that its destruction was not due to unacceptable negligence, are entitled to deference on appeal: R. v. Murray, 2025 ONCA 222, 176 O.R. (3d) 502, at para. 78. The appellant has not established a palpable and overriding error tainting any of the findings that support the trial judge’s conclusions.
|
