A. Marchetti

The accused was charged with robbery and related offences following an armed robbery of a marijuana dispensary by four masked men.

The Crown's case on identity was circumstantial, relying on video surveillance, witness descriptions, the evidence of the getaway driver, and clothing seized from the accused's home.

The court found the getaway driver's evidence unreliable and noted significant differences between the clothing seized and the clothing worn by the perpetrator in the video.

The court concluded the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

The accused was charged with robbery and wounding following a home invasion where two brothers were assaulted and stabbed.

The central issue at trial was identity.

The victims identified the accused, whom they had known from their neighbourhood years prior, both during the incident and in subsequent photo lineups.

Despite defence arguments regarding the reliability of the recognition evidence, the passage of time, and flaws in the photo lineup procedures, the court found the identification evidence credible and reliable.

The accused was found guilty of all charges.

The accused was arrested at the airport for sexual assault and making child pornography.

During a lengthy police interview, the accused repeatedly asserted his right to silence and expressed confusion about his rights, but the interviewing officer continued questioning, minimized the allegations, and induced the accused to provide his cell phone password.

The court found the statement was involuntary and obtained in breach of the accused's rights under ss. 7 and 10(b) of the Charter.

The statement and the contents of the cell phone were excluded from evidence under s. 24(2).

During a trial for child pornography offences, the accused brought a mistrial application after the Crown introduced an unannounced in-court demonstration by a police technical analyst to rebut evidence elicited during the cross-examination of the Crown's computer forensics expert.

The accused argued the analyst gave unqualified expert evidence and the demonstration constituted trial by ambush.

The court held that the analyst's testimony was factual, not expert opinion, but ruled the demonstration inadmissible due to the lack of prior disclosure.

The mistrial application was dismissed, with the court finding that excluding the demonstration and allowing the defence to recall witnesses or call their own expert was a sufficient remedy.