Looks like this case has taken another strange turn. We were recently requested back to court to clarify/provide further submissions on an important point:
Greg was originally charged for allegedly knowingly harassing the complainants. But in Canada criminal harassment can be argued on the basis that the accused knew he or she was harassing, or it can be argued on the basis that the accused didn't necessarily know and was being reckless. These have different lines of argument and considerations for evidence.
The Crown argued from day 1 and through the whole trial that our dad KNEW he was harassing these women. Then on July 14 during her closing arguments, 32 months after he was originally charged, she tried to orally amend the charges and have the judge blend knowing and recklessness into one charge.
We were called back into court Aug 5 where the judge said he couldn't blend them on his own without an injustice being done to Greg. We didn't consent to an amendment and the ruling was that there would not be one.
That's until Crown laywer Marnie Goldenberg submitted an application for amendment on Aug 6.
Now we're back in court Sept 4 to see if the judge strikes down her amendment or will require us to provide official submissions challenging it. If he asks us to argue it, the Oct 6 verdict will be adjourned to a much later date and we'll be back in court to argue this untimely and ill-conceived application.
Please read this post about that day in court to see the judge's ruling and please share widely.