Alan Richter

The accused, a former elite hockey coach, was charged with historical sexual offences against a former player who was 14 to 16 years old at the time.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejecting the accused's categorical denials.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual exploitation, as he was in a position of trust.

However, the accused was acquitted of sexual assault for the period after the complainant turned 16, as the Crown failed to prove he actively induced her to engage in sexual activity.

The accused was tried for the second-degree murder of his mother.

The court previously found that the accused committed the act that caused her death.

The Crown sought to prove that the accused was not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

Based on uncontested expert psychiatric evidence, the court found that the accused suffered from treatment-resistant schizophrenia and was experiencing Capgras delusions and command hallucinations at the time of the offence.

The court concluded that the accused was incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts or knowing they were morally wrong, and found him not criminally responsible.

The accused was charged with the second-degree murder of his mother.

The Crown and defence agreed to proceed by way of admissions for much of the evidence.

The court first had to determine whether the accused committed the actus reus of the offence before considering a potential defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD).

Based on overwhelming forensic, DNA, and circumstantial evidence, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused unlawfully caused the death of the victim by inflicting multiple sharp force injuries.

The applicant sought costs against the Crown under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging misconduct for failing to disclose a police report related to officer misconduct.

The Crown brought a motion to summarily dismiss the costs application.

The court found no evidence of mala fides or intentional suppression of evidence by the Crown.

At most, the Crown made a good faith error in judgment regarding the relevance of the report.

The court concluded that the costs application had no reasonable prospect of success and granted the Crown's motion to dismiss it.

Several accused brought Garofoli applications seeking exclusion of evidence obtained through multiple Part VI wiretap authorizations in a large drug trafficking investigation.

They argued the affidavits failed to establish reasonable and probable grounds and improperly named them as known parties under s. 185(1)(e) of the Criminal Code.

The court held that one authorization related to a homicide investigation lacked sufficient grounds on the edited record and therefore violated s. 8 of the Charter; intercepted room‑probe communications from a residence were excluded under s. 24(2).

However, the court found that the principal drug trafficking wiretap authorizations were supported by reasonable grounds based on confidential informant information, surveillance, phone records, and associations among targets.

Applications to exclude evidence obtained under those authorizations were dismissed.

The applicants brought a preliminary motion in advance of a Garofoli application seeking excision of all references to a vehicle stop and resulting seizures that had previously been found to violate Charter rights.

The impugned events were relied upon in affidavits supporting Part VI wiretap authorizations, a production order for subscriber records, and search warrants for cellular phone contents.

The Crown argued that the applicants lacked standing to seek excision of evidence obtained in violation of third parties’ Charter rights.

The court held that where illegally obtained evidence forms part of the grounds for authorizations affecting the applicants’ privacy interests, the applicants are entitled to challenge the legality of that evidence and seek its removal from the supporting materials.

All references to the unlawful vehicle stop, arrests, and seizures were ordered excised from the affidavits and informations to obtain.

The applicants, charged with drug-related offences, brought a Section 8 Charter application to exclude evidence obtained from Dialled Number Recorder and tracking warrants.

They argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) was deficient due to unconfirmed confidential informant tips, tainted informant pools from police misconduct, and material non-disclosure by the affiant.

The court strongly condemned the egregious conduct of one officer and the sloppiness of the affiant in failing to disclose relevant police reports.

However, after excising inaccuracies and reading in omissions, the court found the remaining reliable information still provided reasonable grounds to suspect the applicant was trafficking drugs.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.