Brian McGuire

The applicants, charged with first-degree murder, brought a Charter application alleging s. 8 violations regarding the search of a trailer on their property and the subsequent warrantless seizure and technological examination of laptops and USB drives found inside.

The court held that the initial search of the trailer was lawfully executed because police took control of the premises within the time specified in the warrant.

The warrantless seizure of the electronic devices was justified under s. 489 of the Criminal Code as the officers had reasonable grounds to believe they would afford evidence.

However, the court found s. 8 violations occurred when an officer conducted a warrantless preview of a USB drive, when the subsequent search warrant failed to authorize a technological examination, and when detention orders were improperly extended.

The applicants, charged with first-degree murder, brought an application to exclude evidence obtained by police from Walmart and CIBC.

The police obtained CCTV footage and a transaction receipt from Walmart without a warrant, and basic account information from CIBC prior to obtaining a production order.

The court found the applicants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the CCTV footage, the transaction receipt, or the limited banking information provided to police.

However, the court found the subsequent production order issued to CIBC was overbroad and invalid.

The court declined to sever the valid portions of the production order, concluding that the records produced by CIBC were obtained in violation of s. 8 of the Charter.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, brought a pre-trial motion to exclude evidence obtained from a cell phone seized from one of the accused without a warrant during a police interview.

The accused alleged violations of ss. 8 and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found that the accused was not detained during the interview, so s. 10(b) was not violated.

The warrantless seizure of the cell phone was lawful under s. 487.11 of the Criminal Code due to exigent circumstances.

The court also held that the accused lacked standing to challenge searches of the deceased's cell phone and email, and had no reasonable expectation of privacy in basic subscriber information.

However, the court found that the search warrant subsequently obtained to examine the contents of the seized cell phone was facially invalid because it did not authorize a technological search, resulting in a s. 8 violation.

The court concluded that the Information to Obtain (ITO) was sufficient to have supported a proper warrant.

The determination of whether to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) was deferred.

The applicants brought a motion to exclude evidence obtained from a warrantless seizure of their garbage, which included items containing DNA evidence.

The applicants argued they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the garbage and, alternatively, in the DNA information embedded on the items.

Applying the totality of the circumstances test, the court found that the applicants had abandoned the garbage by placing it out for municipal collection.

The court further held that the abandonment of the garbage effectively constituted the abandonment of any privacy interest in the DNA information it contained.

The application to exclude the evidence under section 8 of the Charter was dismissed.

The Crown sought to admit ante-mortem statements made by two deceased victims in a first-degree murder trial.

The statements were evaluated under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court ruled that three statements made by one victim were inadmissible because necessity was not established, as better quality evidence was available, and their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value.

However, a statement made by the second victim was ruled admissible, as it met the requirements of necessity and threshold reliability without undue prejudicial effect.

In a voir dire during a first-degree murder trial, the court considered the admissibility of several pre-arrest statements made by the two accused to police.

The defence argued the statements were involuntary because the accused were suspects and should have been given a primary caution, and that police used trickery by telling them they were not suspects.

The court found that the accused were not suspects at the time of the interviews based on the objective standard of reasonable suspicion.

The court held that even if they were suspects, the statements were voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt, as there were no threats, promises, or oppressive circumstances, and the accused had operating minds.

The court also rejected arguments that section 7 of the Charter was violated, noting it does not apply prior to detention.

All pre-arrest statements were ruled admissible.

The applicants, facing multiple murder charges, brought a last-minute application to seal emails seized under a general warrant and prohibit Crown and police access, alleging facial invalidity and abuse of process.

This application followed an earlier agreement to return non-privileged emails to the Crown.

The court, acting as the trial judge on the eve of trial, deferred the full review of the warrant's validity to pretrial motions, emphasizing trial management and procedural fairness.

The court also found the warrant not facially invalid on a preliminary review and noted the defence's failure to adhere to the prior agreement regarding email return.

The Crown applied under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act for leave to cross-examine a reluctant witness, Mr. Moy-Lingomba, on prior inconsistent statements made to an undercover informant, Mr. Darren Watts, during a first-degree murder trial.

The witness had recanted his prior statements during examination-in-chief, claiming he was "high" and couldn't recall.

The defence opposed, arguing no material inconsistency and challenging the circumstances of the statements.

The court found material inconsistencies and granted leave, determining that the interests of justice favoured allowing cross-examination, as the statements were relevant to the identity of the shooter, the credibility of another witness, and the motive for the shooting, and their reliability was not fundamentally undermined by the witness's claims of impairment or the informant's conduct.

The court ruled on the admissibility of a prior inconsistent statement under s. 11 of the Canada Evidence Act during a first-degree murder trial.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence from a witness, Mr. Watts, that another witness, Mr. Moy-Lingomba, had previously identified the defendant as the shooter.

The court initially precluded this evidence during the Crown's examination-in-chief of Mr. Watts, finding that the precondition of s. 11, requiring the alleged statement to be squarely put to Mr. Moy-Lingomba during cross-examination, had not been met.

The ruling emphasized the rationale of s. 11 concerning trial economy, fairness to the adversary, and fairness to the witness, and also noted the limited probative value and substantial prejudicial value of the evidence in question.

The defendant, Sheldon Ranglin, charged with first-degree murder, brought a proposed application to exclude evidence related to a three-way phone call.

The defence challenged the validity of a production order for Maplehurst Correctional Facility phone records, opposed the introduction of July 3, 2015 phone records due to alleged inconsistencies with witness testimony, and sought an adjournment of cross-examination due to outstanding disclosure.

The court summarily dismissed the application, finding that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the Maplehurst pay phone records and thus no standing to challenge their admission.

The other issues were deemed matters for cross-examination or future application.

The court ruled on whether to provide a Vetrovec caution to the jury for three witnesses (Mr. Borden, Mr. Moy-Lingomba, and Mr. Watts) in a criminal trial.

The Defence objected to cautions for Mr. Borden and Mr. Moy-Lingomba, arguing that such cautions are for the Defence's benefit and should be omitted if the Defence requests.

The Crown conceded that a caution was not needed for Mr. Watts.

The court determined that a trial judge's duty to ensure trial fairness and assist the jury supersedes a tactical decision by the Defence when a Vetrovec caution is necessary or mandatory.

Given Mr. Borden's overwhelming credibility issues and the centrality of his evidence to the Crown's case, a Vetrovec caution was deemed mandatory.

For Mr. Moy-Lingomba, who also had overwhelming credibility issues and whose evidence was critical to both the Crown (motive) and Defence (third-party suspect), a "mixed Vetrovec" caution was deemed mandatory to assist the jury in assessing inculpatory and exculpatory statements.

During a murder trial involving allegations that a child died following assaults and a failure to provide necessaries of life, the court considered whether the defence of duress should be left with the jury for one accused.

Evidence was led of a long history of domestic violence and threats by the co‑accused spouse.

The Crown argued there was no evidence that threats were made for the purpose of compelling the accused to commit the underlying unlawful acts.

Applying the air of reality test from Supreme Court jurisprudence, the court concluded that the evidence was capable of supporting an inference that the accused’s failure to act was compelled by ongoing threats and violence.

The defence of duress was therefore left to the jury in relation to omissions arising from a legal duty, though not for acts of commission.

The Crown sought to admit statements made by the accused to police during a pre-arrest telephone call and a post-arrest interview.

The accused argued the telephone statements were involuntary because she was not cautioned, and the post-arrest statements were the product of oppressive circumstances, including continued questioning after she requested counsel.

The court found that the accused had an operating mind and made a meaningful choice to speak during the telephone call.

The court also held that the post-arrest interview was not oppressive, as the accused had already consulted with counsel and the police were not required to facilitate further contact.

Both statements were ruled voluntary and admissible.

Two accused were jointly tried for the homicide of a young teenager.

The principal accused admitted causing the death but contested whether the killing constituted first degree murder, second degree murder, or manslaughter.

The co‑accused was alleged to have participated in a plan to lure the victim to the residence and assist in the killing.

The trial involved numerous evidentiary rulings, including admissibility of a fictional story written by the co‑accused as potential motive evidence, disclosure and partial admission of the victim’s diary, admission of edited autopsy photographs, and applications concerning prior consistent statements under the Edgar doctrine.

The jury ultimately convicted the principal accused of first degree murder and acquitted the co‑accused.

The decision records extensive reasons on pre‑trial and mid‑trial evidentiary and procedural rulings made throughout the proceeding.