IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

[1]        THE COURT: Before the court today is Information 22315-A-1, R. v. Steven Dale Glazier, which alleges that Mr. Glazier did, on July 9, 2019, breach his bail order by having communication directly or indirectly with, or being alone in the presence of persons under the age of 16 years contrary to s. 145(3) of the Criminal Code. The trial was scheduled for today's date, July 28, 2020. The Crown has applied for two different orders of the court in relation to the presently available technology. That technology is such that this judge is physically present in the City of Prince George and is connected by a video feed to the courthouse in Fort Nelson where Crown counsel and defence counsel and the accused are all in person.

[2]        One of the Crown's application is to have the court preside over the trial with the judge sitting remotely. The second part of the Crown's application is to have a probation officer who is in Fort St. John connect remotely to the courthouse in Fort Nelson. Then presumably, and I say presumably because I am unaware of the technology that may have to be applied, to be connected directly through to the courthouse in Prince George where I am sitting.

[3]        I want to first deal with the second of the two applications I have just mentioned, that being the attendance of the probation officer, and then I will deal with the remote attendance of the judge. Section 714.1 provides that:

[4]        The latter of all of those various subsections does not apply here because the Crown is seeking to have the witness appear by video. Defence counsel opposes that application on the basis that the way the technology would work, as he understands it, would make it difficult for the witness to give their evidence in a fashion that would be fair to Mr. Glazier and would allow the court to assess their evidence. As I understand the evidence from this person, she is a bail supervisor/probation officer and she would be identifying the document on which Mr. Glazier was on bail. She would be confirming to the court that she identified a person who was before her at a point in the past as Mr. Glazier and that she confirmed the contents of that document with him and that he understood the nature and consequences of any breaches.

[5]        With regard to the probation officer's evidence, it is my view that such evidence could be taken by video. It is done all the time. The limitation would be the limitation of the technology. It is common, particularly in remote and more rural areas of this country, for witnesses who are in one location to give evidence by video to another. The court is well able to assess their credibility and reliability on such a video feed, and I would simply state by way of an example that we regularly allow complainants of serious sexual assault matters to appear remotely by close-circuit television and their credibility and reliability is capable of being assessed in this circumstances.

[6]        The limiting factor with regard to the probation officer's evidence would be whether the technology would work in a fashion that would allow the court to make whatever findings it needs to make on the evidence. In other words, would the probation officer be able to see clearly enough around the courtroom in Fort Nelson by a camera pan in order to point out the person that they may have dealt with on the day in question? Would the judge here in Prince George be able to see what the probation officer was seeing by way of that camera pan or would the court only see the partial screen during that part of their evidence. If it was only an application concerning that witness' evidence, I would find in favour of the Crown.

[7]        Turning to the attendance of the court remotely, that is provided for in s. 715.26 of the Code which reads as follows:

[8]        Having judges appear remotely for trials occurs occasionally. We are in unusual times. The Covid-19 pandemic has required everybody involved in the justice system to evaluate how they can continue to have the system operationally function without losing sight of the fact that it is a court proceeding. Everybody, the accused, witnesses, counsel and the Judge must all be able to participate in a fashion with a minimal amount of impediment to them each being able to fulfill their roles appropriately.

[9]        In this case, counsel for the Crown advises that we would have a witness by video, the probation officer; we have a police officer in person; and apparently at least one other witness, the former spouse of Mr. Glazier, who, although it was not specifically stated by counsel, apparently is available in Fort Nelson. Defence counsel takes the view that trying to conduct this type of trial in the circumstances of the technology that we have available would be difficult, it would potentially prejudice Mr. Glazier, and that it would be more appropriate for such a case to be held with the judge in person.

[10]      On that point, I would say that it is always most appropriate for a judge to appear in person and that the accused person appear before the judge in person, but occasionally that cannot be accommodated. Mr. Zipp also points out that he has conducted trials in the Supreme Court over the past several weeks with everybody appearing in person. The difficulty in this case is that given the partial and incremental reopening of the Provincial Court throughout the province, the only time that would be available for me to attend in Fort Nelson this week was the Monday and Tuesday. I am told, although it is always subject to change, that I have been assigned other duties for the remainder of this week in other locations.

[11]      That has to also be combined with the fact that in order to get me from Prince George to Fort Nelson and return in a timely fashion would require air transportation and the only scheduled air carrier to Fort Nelson from Prince George is not flying a scheduled route at this time. Therefore, it would have been necessary for me to travel to Fort Nelson by motor vehicle which certainly could have been accomplished for me to appear on Monday in Fort Nelson, but would not permit me to conduct a full day of court in Fort Nelson in Tuesday and be in Prince George again on the Wednesday morning.

[12]      When it comes to determining whether the provisions of s. 715.26 should result in the hearing being conducted remotely, the court must rely on counsel's submissions with regard to the nature of the case and the nuances that the case may present. I have considered those submissions and the four provisions set out in s. 715.26(1) and, as I have already commented on yesterday, to the court and to the powers that be in the Court Services Branch, the technological interface between Prince George and Fort Nelson so far as audio quality and some video issues is less than optimal. When I weigh all of those factors into account, I am of the view that the court should not preside remotely with regard to this trial in the present circumstances.

[13]      I would say parenthetically, and it is by way of an epilogue, that if some of those technical issues could be resolved, it is possible for the court to conduct a trial of the nature that is being suggested today remotely, but that is for another day and for another entity to make the necessary technological arrangements.

[14]      I am adjourning this matter back to the judicial case manager today so that every effort can be made to find a suitable date as soon as possible.