Andrew Midwood

The applicants, charged with firearms offences, brought a pre-trial motion to exclude evidence obtained from a forensic search of their cellphones.

They argued the Information to Obtain lacked reasonable grounds and the police failed to file a report to justice regarding the data analysis.

The court denied leave to cross-examine the affiant and upheld the validity of the warrant despite minor misstatements.

Although the court found a section 8 Charter breach due to the failure to file a report to justice for the data analysis, the evidence was admitted under section 24(2) as the breach was minor and technical.

The defendant, convicted of manslaughter and aggravated assault after a drug-induced psychotic episode, applied post-conviction but pre-sentencing to re-open his constitutional challenge to s. 33.1 of the Criminal Code.

He argued that a recent decision by a coordinate judge (R. v. McCaw), which held that a prior declaration of unconstitutionality was binding, constituted exceptional circumstances.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the Lessard test requires exceptional circumstances to re-open a case.

The court disagreed with the reasoning in McCaw, affirming that the horizontal convention of precedent applies to constitutional declarations and that the court was not bound by the prior decision striking down s. 33.1.

The accused, charged with murder, attempted murder, and aggravated assault after stabbing his father and his father's partner while hallucinating on magic mushrooms, brought an application challenging the constitutionality of s. 33.1 of the Criminal Code.

Section 33.1 precludes the defence of self-induced intoxication for general intent offences involving violence.

The court found that while s. 33.1 violates the accused's rights under ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter by substituting the intent to become intoxicated for the fault and voluntariness elements of the offences, the provision is saved under s. 1 of the Charter.

The court held that protecting victims, particularly women and children, from intoxicated violence and ensuring offender accountability are pressing and substantial objectives that justify the Charter infringements.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for impaired care or control of a motor vehicle under s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

He had been found asleep in the driver’s seat of a parked vehicle with the engine running while waiting for a designated driver.

The appeal court held the trial judge misapplied the legal test for care or control by treating the accused’s decision to sleep while waiting as undermining his safety plan.

Applying the principles in R. v. Boudreault and related authorities, the court found there was insufficient evidence of a realistic risk that the accused would set the vehicle in motion or change his intention to drive.

The trial judge’s reasoning improperly criminalized the use of the vehicle for a manifestly innocent purpose.