Annie Gauthier

On a pre-trial evidentiary motion in a homicide prosecution involving an anticipated self-defence claim, the court ruled on the admissibility of the deceased's ante mortem statements, evidence of the deceased's peaceable disposition, and numerous photographs.

The court held that certain statements made by the deceased to a friend were admissible under the state of mind exception and the principled hearsay approach because necessity and threshold reliability were established and the probative value outweighed prejudice.

Peaceable disposition evidence was admitted in part as relevant to rebut the self-defence theory, but evidence from the deceased's brother concerning the debt was excluded due to undue prejudice.

The court also conducted a category-by-category balancing of probative value and prejudicial effect for photographic evidence, admitting some images and excluding others as cumulative or insufficiently probative.

A youth, aged 17 at the time of the offences, pleaded guilty to procuring under section 212 of the Criminal Code, making child pornography under section 163.1, making available child pornography under section 163.1(3), and attempting to procure a person to become a prostitute under section 212(1)(d).

The youth recruited three young women aged 16 to work as prostitutes, took suggestive photographs, posted them on the internet, fixed prices for sexual acts, and collected money from the women.

The court imposed a 24-month probation sentence with conditions rather than custody, considering the youth's strong family support, genuine remorse, guilty pleas, counselling efforts, community involvement, and rehabilitation potential against the serious nature of the exploitation offences.

The accused brought a pre‑trial Charter application seeking exclusion of drugs, a firearm, and other evidence obtained through a search warrant executed at his residence.

The court reviewed the telewarrant process and the sufficiency of the Information to Obtain (ITO), finding that the warrant relied largely on an unproven confidential informant with no reliability record and minimal corroboration.

The ITO contained misleading statements and significant omissions, including speculative allegations linking the accused to drug activity and failure to disclose surveillance showing no suspicious activity.

The court concluded that the issuing justice lacked sufficient reliable evidence to establish reasonable and probable grounds and quashed the warrant.

Considering additional Charter breaches, including excessive force during execution and violation of the right to counsel, the court excluded the seized drugs, firearm, and ammunition under s. 24(2).