Brian Ross

The Crown applied to admit an edited audiorecording and transcript of a co-accused's (Jerome Bent) guilty plea to first-degree murder as substantive evidence in the defendant Dellan McMorris's trial.

Bent, who was expected to refuse to testify, had pleaded guilty to the murder of Delano Coombs.

The defence argued that a co-accused's plea is inadmissible except for credibility.

The court, applying the principled exception to the hearsay rule, found the plea and edited portions of the agreed statement of facts to meet the threshold reliability and necessity requirements, allowing their admission as substantive evidence against McMorris, but only to prove Bent's culpability, not to directly implicate McMorris.

This ruling addresses a voir dire to determine the voluntariness and admissibility of a statement made by the defendant, Dellan McMorris, to police regarding his cell phone number.

The statement was obtained during a traffic stop where McMorris was a passenger.

The Crown sought to admit this statement in a murder trial.

The defence argued the statement was involuntary, alleging a police threat to charge McMorris with possession of a stolen vehicle if he did not cooperate, and also sought exclusion under s. 24(2) of the Charter for alleged violations of ss. 8, 9, and 10.

The court found the police officers' notes incomplete and their testimony less reliable, while the defendant's testimony regarding the threat was sufficiently credible to raise a reasonable doubt about voluntariness.

Consequently, the statement was deemed inadmissible.

The court declined to rule on the Charter application.

This ruling addresses two applications concerning the admissibility of hearsay declarations by Jerome Bent in the murder trial of Dellan McMorris.

The defence sought to admit Bent's July 2012 declarations, asserting Bent was the principal shooter and McMorris merely present.

The Crown sought to admit Bent's April 2013 declarations, which implicated McMorris.

The court dismissed both applications, finding that neither set of declarations met the threshold reliability requirement under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court highlighted issues with inconsistent statements, lack of contemporaneous recording, Graham's motivation and credibility, and the absence of independent confirmatory evidence directly implicating McMorris.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder in the death of Delano Coombs.

At the preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to admit a 3.5-hour audio-recorded statement made by Jerome Bent, a separately charged co-accused, to an undercover police agent (Jermaine Graham) for the truth of its contents.

The defence sought to admit a separate, unrecorded statement by Bent regarding a hoody he allegedly dropped at the scene.

The court applied the principled approach to hearsay evidence under the necessity and reliability test.

While necessity was conceded, the court found that the Crown's proposed hearsay evidence did not meet the threshold reliability standard due to multiple frailties, including: the declarant's initial untruthfulness about the accused's involvement, leading and suggestive questioning by the undercover agent, minimal corroborating evidence directly linking the accused to the murder, and the absence of visual cues critical to assessing credibility.

The defence application regarding the hoody statement was similarly rejected despite substantial corroborating evidence, as the statement lacked sufficient indicia of reliability beyond the corroboration.

Both applications were dismissed.

Following a jury conviction for second degree murder arising from the prolonged abuse and death of a child, the court determined the appropriate periods of parole ineligibility under ss. 235 and 745.4 of the Criminal Code.

The sentencing judge assessed the character of each offender, the nature and circumstances of the offence, and the jury’s recommendations.

The evidence established prolonged physical abuse, malnutrition, and deprivation of medical care, culminating in a fatal assault.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that one accused committed the final assault causing death, while the other was complicit through failure to protect and participation in the ongoing abuse.

The primary perpetrator received life imprisonment with 18 years’ parole ineligibility, while the secondary participant received life imprisonment with 13 years’ parole ineligibility.

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.

During a joint trial for the murder of a child, the co-accused's counsel produced previously undisclosed photographs depicting the victim chained to a bed.

The applicant sought a severance of his trial, arguing the late disclosure undermined his cross-examination strategy and created fundamental unfairness.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the late production was a natural response to the applicant's cutthroat defence tactics and did not violate Crown disclosure obligations or create an injustice requiring separate trials.

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.

During a criminal trial involving armed robbery and firearms offences, the Crown sought admission of three oral statements and one video statement made by the accused while in custody.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine whether the statements were voluntary under the confessions rule.

The court found that the accused’s initial spontaneous remark to a police officer while being escorted to a washroom was voluntary and admissible.

However, the Crown failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that subsequent statements made during an unrecorded 52‑minute discussion with police and the resulting video statement were voluntary, particularly given concerns about possible inducements and the absence of a reliable recording of the interrogation.

The later statements were therefore ruled inadmissible.

The Crown applied to qualify a translator as an expert to provide opinion evidence interpreting intercepted Farsi audio recordings into English in a criminal prosecution.

The defence challenged the proposed expert’s qualifications and alleged potential bias arising from his role assisting police investigators.

Applying the admissibility test for expert opinion evidence from R. v. Mohan, the court found the translator possessed sufficient proficiency in both Farsi and English and had relevant training and experience conducting translations for police wiretap investigations.

The court rejected the allegation of bias and concluded the translation evidence was necessary for the jury to understand the intercepted communications.

The translator was therefore qualified to provide expert opinion evidence interpreting the Farsi recordings.

The defendant was charged with thirteen counts of firearm possession and three counts of robbery with a firearm arising from a home invasion on December 24, 2011.

At the preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal on the robbery with firearm charges.

The defendant conceded committal on the possession counts.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit the defendant to trial on the robbery with firearm charges based on the doctrine of recent possession, the timing of the defendant's acquisition of the stolen firearms within hours of the robbery, and circumstantial evidence suggesting prior knowledge of the robbery.

The accused was found guilty by a jury of second degree murder, aggravated assault, and committing aggravated assault with a weapon following a home invasion where the victim was killed with a shotgun.

The court considered the jury's recommendations for parole ineligibility, the aggravating factor of a prior first degree murder conviction two weeks prior, and the violent nature of the execution-style killing.

The accused was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for 25 years for second degree murder, with concurrent sentences for the assault charges.

The appellant, a childcare worker, was sued in negligence after a child suffered a brain injury in her care.

During the civil proceedings, the police investigated the appellant criminally.

The appellant sought to prevent the disclosure of her civil discovery evidence to the police, relying on the implied undertaking rule.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the implied undertaking rule applies to discovery evidence that may disclose criminal conduct, and that parties cannot generally disclose such evidence to the police without a court order.

The Court allowed the appeal, preventing the disclosure of the discovery transcripts to the police without a proper search warrant.