Bradley J. Greenshields

During a jury trial for first-degree murder, the Crown sought to introduce cell tower evidence showing the accused's phone was turned off or disconnected on several dates prior to the shooting, matching the pattern on the day of the murder.

The defence objected, arguing the evidence was speculative.

The court held that the evidence was not admissible to prove the identity of the shooter, as its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value for that purpose.

However, the court ruled the evidence was admissible as circumstantial evidence of planning and deliberation, provided the jury first found the accused was the shooter.

In a first-degree murder trial, the defence objected to the admissibility of various Crown documents (hotel records, telephone records, BC police surveillance) and sought a ruling to prevent the Crown from presenting its proposed theory of liability to the jury.

The court applied the probative value versus prejudicial effect balancing test and found most of the disputed evidence admissible, as it collectively supported the Crown's theory connecting the accused to the vehicle used in the killing and to co-conspirators.

However, Air Canada records related to the victim's travel were deemed inadmissible due to speculative relevance.

The defence's broader objection to the Crown's theory of liability was adjourned as premature, and the court affirmed that the jury could compare handwriting samples without expert testimony, provided proper instructions are given.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of photographic and video evidence against the accused, Raja Dosanjh, in a first-degree murder trial.

The defence objected to four photographs and one video.

The court applied the probative value versus prejudicial effect test, excluding one photograph (Exhibit 'A') due to its high prejudicial value outweighing its low probative value.

Three other photographs (Exhibit 'B') and one video (Exhibit 'C') were deemed admissible as circumstantial evidence related to identification, height, and mannerisms, with appropriate jury cautions to mitigate prejudice.

The appellant appealed his conviction on two counts of impaired operation of a vessel causing bodily harm arising from a boating accident.

The appellant had consumed alcohol throughout the day and evening before taking control of a boat in unfamiliar waters at dusk, resulting in a collision with an island that ejected two passengers.

The trial judge convicted based on the totality of circumstances, including the appellant's conduct, alcohol consumption, and expert evidence regarding blood alcohol concentration.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding it was reasonable and supported by evidence.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal sentence and raised a Charter argument regarding the breathalyzer demand that had not been raised at trial, which the court declined to hear.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted and the victim surcharge order was quashed, but the sentence itself was upheld as within the normal range for the offence.

The appellant appealed a committal order for extradition to the United States to stand trial for Internet luring and child exploitation offences.

The Court of Appeal upheld the committal order and dismissed the application for judicial review of the Minister's surrender order.

The majority found that the search warrants were valid, that the extradition judge did not err in applying the disclosure test, and that the Minister reasonably exercised her discretion in ordering surrender.

The dissent argued that the extradition judge applied the wrong disclosure test and exercised discretion unreasonably, rendering the hearing unfair.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of expert evidence in a first-degree murder trial, building upon a previous decision.

The court assessed the qualifications and proposed opinion evidence of several Crown experts: Jeremy Dupuis (forensic computer and digital analysis), Dr. Elena Bulakhtina (postmortem examination, adopting conclusions of the deceased Dr. John Fernandes), D/Cst.

Greg Kaut (phone analysis), and Mr. Beatty (functionality of BlackBerry phones).

The court found all experts qualified and their opinion evidence admissible, with counsel agreeing to redact inadmissible portions of the postmortem report for the jury.

In a first-degree murder trial, the Crown sought a pre-trial ruling to admit ante-mortem hearsay statements and evidence of the deceased's past drug dealing to establish motive for a professional killing.

The defence argued the evidence was irrelevant, lacking a nexus between the deceased's background and the accused, and that motive was not a required element to prove.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding the proposed evidence irrelevant to the issue of identity and highly prejudicial, as it would invite the jury to speculate without a direct connection to the accused.

The Crown sought to use the phrase "professional killing" in its opening and closing addresses to the jury in a first-degree murder trial, arguing it was an "umbrella term" supported by circumstantial evidence of planning and coordination.

The defence objected, arguing the phrase was prejudicial, irrelevant, and would lead to improper propensity reasoning, especially as the accused had no prior record and was not charged with criminal organization involvement.

The court found the phrase irrelevant and potentially irreparably prejudicial without an evidentiary basis at the opening stage, prohibiting its use in the Crown's opening address but allowing for reconsideration before closing arguments.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of various PowerPoint slides the Crown sought to use during a criminal trial.

The defence objected to specific elements, including a label on a DNA evidence slide implying a warrant was necessary, the relevance of an arrest photo taken a year after the alleged offence, and the potential for opinion evidence from an officer using video stills.

The court ruled that the DNA slide must be edited to remove the warrant reference, the arrest photo was admissible given the significance of identification, and the video stills were admissible provided prejudicial labels were removed and witness testimony avoided improper opinion.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, sought leave to cross-examine three police officers (D/Cst Brian Welsh, Julie Meier, and Constable Michael Ryder) in relation to a pre-trial motion to exclude electronic evidence obtained from a vehicle's infotainment system.

The defence argued the warrant for this evidence was invalid due to alleged s. 8 Charter breaches, material non-disclosure, or misleading information in the Information to Obtain (ITO) the warrant, particularly concerning a prior warrantless search.

The Crown agreed to Welsh's cross-examination but opposed Meier and Ryder.

The court granted leave to cross-examine all three officers, finding that the defence had met the "reasonable likelihood" standard that the cross-examination would assist in determining whether the issuing justice was materially misled by the ITO, thereby undermining the warrant process.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, brought a motion seeking standing to challenge the search and seizure of electronic data (GPS tracklogs and a phone contact list) extracted from a rental vehicle's infotainment system.

The Crown argued the accused lacked standing because the vehicle was obtained under false pretenses and the phone belonged to a third party.

The court applied the Marakah framework and found that the accused had a direct interest and an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the electronic data, as it had the potential to reveal intimate biographical details.

The accused was granted standing to argue the Section 8 Charter breach.

The defence moved for disclosure of legal advice provided to the Guelph Police Service, arguing that the police implicitly waived solicitor-client privilege by referencing legal advice in an Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant, thereby putting their good faith in issue.

The Crown and Guelph Police Service denied waiver.

The court distinguished the facts from R. v. Campbell, finding no illegal police activity and that the references to legal advice were part of a narrative for full disclosure, not an attempt to justify illegal activity.

The court held that the police did not implicitly waive privilege, and the defence's request for disclosure was dismissed.

The defence brought a pre-trial motion for disclosure of communications between the investigating officer and the Crown attorney regarding an infotainment system warrant, following the Crown's filing of an affidavit by the officer.

The defence argued the materials were relevant to the officer's credibility and the validity of the warrant.

The Crown opposed, arguing the request was overly broad and a "fishing expedition." The court, following an in camera review of the requested documents, ordered the disclosure of specific emails and a volume of documents deemed relevant to the officer's credibility.

The applicant brought a pre-trial motion to exclude Crown evidence due to alleged s. 8 Charter breaches.

In response to an affidavit filed by the investigating officer, the applicant sought disclosure of all recorded communications between the officer and the Crown Attorney regarding a warrant.

The Crown did not object to providing the materials to the judge for review.

The court ordered the Crown to provide the requested information for the judge's review pursuant to R. v. Dixon and R. v. Chu.

The Crown sought a ruling on the voluntariness of statements made by the accused, Raja Dosanjh, during a police interview in a first-degree murder case.

The defence put the Crown to its burden of proving voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt, without raising specific issues regarding promises, threats, or oppressive circumstances.

The court conducted a contextual analysis, considering factors such as the accused's demeanor, understanding of rights, and the absence of inducements, oppression, lack of operating mind, or trickery.

The court found that the accused voluntarily chose to speak to the officer and that the statements were admissible.

The Crown sought to admit expert evidence in a first-degree murder trial.

The court, acting as gatekeeper, reviewed the qualifications and reports of seven proposed expert witnesses.

While the defence conceded the admissibility of most experts, the court ruled on the scope of their evidence.

The court accepted experts in DNA analysis, photogrammetry, gunshot residue, and firearms examination.

However, the court expressed concerns regarding the clarity of reports and the current qualifications of two experts in phone analysis and phone functionality, requiring further clarification or a voir dire before their evidence could be admitted.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder arising from the deaths of two sex trade workers found in different locations in the Niagara Region approximately 29 months apart.

Both victims died of blunt-force trauma to the head, and blood of both victims was found in the appellant's residences.

The trial judge admitted evidence of one count as similar act evidence on the other count and refused to sever the counts.

The trial judge also refused to discharge a juror who had a prior acquaintance with the victim's stepmother, and declined to leave manslaughter as an included offence.

The Court of Appeal found multiple errors: the similar act evidence did not meet the required threshold of striking similarity, the juror should have been discharged to preserve the appearance of fairness, and manslaughter should have been left to the jury.

The court also addressed a Charter breach regarding live monitoring conditions in wiretap authorizations but found the evidence admissible under section 24(2).

The accused, Jeetinder Gill, was charged with attempted murder and aggravated assault.

The Crown did not pursue attempted murder.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of multiple witnesses, including the complainant and his associates, finding their testimonies to be inconsistent, self-serving, and unreliable, particularly regarding alcohol and drug consumption and the events leading to the stabbing.

Objective evidence from a hotel guest and manager contradicted the complainant's narrative of a peaceful interaction.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the stabbing.

An acquittal was entered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for failing to provide the necessaries of life to his blind and cognitively impaired mother and sister, resulting in their deaths from starvation and septic shock respectively.

The appellant also appealed his sentence of 18 years (8 years consecutive for criminal negligence in his sister's death and 10 years for manslaughter in his mother's death).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal but allowed the sentence appeal.

The court found that while the verdicts were inconsistent (acquittal on manslaughter but conviction on criminal negligence for the sister's death), the criminal negligence conviction was reasonable and supported by evidence, whereas the manslaughter acquittal arose from a manifest legal error.

The court admitted fresh evidence regarding the appellant's cognitive limitations on the sentencing issue and reduced the global sentence to 14 years, minus presentence custody credit of 1,405 days, resulting in a net sentence of 10 years and 2 months.

The Crown brought an application for directions regarding the procedure to review documents seized from the respondent's residence over which solicitor-client privilege was asserted.

The Crown proposed providing the respondent with a copy of the USB key containing the documents so she could identify privileged materials, while the defence argued for a third-party referee.

The court accepted the Crown's proposal, finding it sensible and protective of the respondent's rights as the privilege holder, and ordered the respondent to review the documents within 60 days.