Andrew Burton

The defendants in a drug and proceeds offence case sought standing to challenge search warrants under the Charter.

The court dismissed the application for standing for all defendants except one (Taylor Brennan, whose charges were later stayed), finding that they failed to prove a sufficient connection to the searched properties to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy on a balance of probabilities.

The decision reiterates that the onus is on the defendant to prove standing and discusses the application of the Edwards factors and the normative vs. categorical approach to Charter standing.

The Crown brought a motion under s. 771 of the Criminal Code for forfeiture of amounts pledged in a release order after the accused failed to appear in court.

The accused and his main sureties had written down the wrong return date, but the accused surrendered four days later.

The court found that while the sureties acted properly in remedying the failure, they did not act with due diligence to prevent it.

Given the serious nature of the original charges, the court ordered a partial forfeiture of $1,000 each from the accused and the two main sureties.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against his young daughter between April 2016 and January 2017.

The trial proceeded in stages, with the first stage addressing admissibility of the complainant's out-of-court statements under section 715.1 of the Criminal Code and the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The Crown's case relied on the complainant's video-recorded statement to police, her testimony at trial, her statements during play therapy, and her initial spontaneous utterance to her mother.

The defendant's defence was that the complainant had initiated inappropriate sexual contact while he slept and that others, including the complainant's mother and grandfather, were responsible for any sexual abuse or exposure to sexual material.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and compelling, rejected the defendant's narrative, and convicted him on both charges.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against his young daughter between April 2016 and January 2017.

The trial proceeded in three stages.

This decision addresses Stage 1, which involved a voir dire concerning the admissibility of three out-of-court statements by the complainant: an initial utterance to her mother and neighbour, statements and actions during play therapy with a social worker, and a video-recorded statement to police.

The Crown sought to admit these statements under the principled exception to the hearsay rule and section 715.1 of the Criminal Code.

The court ruled all three statements admissible, finding both necessity and threshold reliability were established.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm following an altercation in a high school bathroom.

The accused claimed she acted in self-defence, asserting that the victim was about to assault her and she struck preemptively.

The Crown presented evidence from three witnesses indicating the accused attacked the victim from behind without provocation, causing a broken nose requiring two surgeries, blackened eyes, and swollen cheeks.

The court found the accused's testimony not credible and determined that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted the victim without lawful justification under sections 34 or 37 of the Criminal Code.

The accused was found guilty.