Law360 Canada ( April 9, 2026, 9:39 AM EDT) -- Appeal by Kipusi from his convictions for criminal harassment and breach of release conditions. He received a conditional sentence of five months followed by 15 months of probation. The appellant challenged his convictions and, in the alternative, his sentence. The central background issue was the Crown’s use at trial of statements the appellant made to Dr. Gojer during a court‑ordered not criminally responsible (NCR) assessment. Dr. Gojer concluded the appellant was not NCR and filed a report containing protected statements. The appellant’s new lawyer was unaware of the report, which the Crown did not disclose nor indicate it intended to impeach the appellant if he testified. The appellant testified in his own defence, and midway through cross‑examination, the Crown unexpectedly called Dr. Gojer and elicited evidence of the appellant’s statements. Defence sought a mistrial, arguing nondisclosure and the need for a voluntariness voir dire because Dr. Gojer was a person in authority. The trial judge denied the mistrial, reasoning the report was not a disclosure item and the appellant knew he participated in the assessment. After Dr. Gojer testified, the Crown resumed cross‑examination, confronting the appellant with the protected statements. The trial judge later relied on inconsistencies between the appellant’s testimony and those statements in rejecting his evidence. The issues on appeal were whether the trial judge erred by permitting protected statements to be led without a voir dire, whether the Crown violated ss. 10-11 of the Canada Evidence Act (CEA) by calling Dr. Gojer before putting the statements to the appellant, and whether the trial judge erred in failing to grant a remedy for the Crown’s nondisclosure of its intention to use the statements to impeach credibility....