Cécile Applegate

The Crown brought an application for a section 487 Criminal Code search warrant and a section 487.02 assistance order to compel the accused to provide passcodes or PIN codes to unlock his cell phone.

The accused opposed the assistance order.

The court found that while section 487.02 may apply to accused persons, the proposed assistance order violated the accused's section 7 Charter rights, specifically the principle against self-incrimination and the right to silence.

The court declined to issue the assistance order, finding that use immunity did not adequately address the compelled active participation of the accused in his own prosecution.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The Crown presented evidence of erratic driving, observations of impairment by civilian witnesses and police officers, and breath sample results of 260 and 250 mg/100mL of blood.

The accused challenged the detention and sought exclusion of evidence based on Charter violations.

The court found the Crown proved impaired operation beyond a reasonable doubt, rejected Charter violations regarding counsel access, but found an arbitrary detention between the hospital visit and police station release.

However, the court declined to stay proceedings or exclude evidence as the remedy was not warranted.

The accused was convicted on the first count with a stay of proceedings on the second count pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The accused, a stepfather, pleaded guilty to sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The victim was his stepdaughter, aged 13-15 years old at the time of the offences.

The assaults occurred between 2013 and August 2015 and included four incidents involving digital penetration and inappropriate touching.

The court considered the Charter right to the benefit of the lesser punishment under section 11(i) where the offence date straddled an amendment to sentencing provisions.

The court imposed an eight-month jail sentence followed by two years of probation, along with DNA order, SOIRA order for 10 years, and a five-year weapons prohibition.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal on first degree murder for the stabbing death of Milan Segota, with the defence conceding second degree murder.

The Crown also sought committal on aggravated assault for injuries to Aimee Novak, with the defence conceding assault with a weapon.

The court examined whether circumstantial evidence supported inferences of planning and deliberation necessary for first degree murder.

The court found insufficient evidence of planning and deliberation, distinguishing the case from situations involving armed ambush or premeditated knife acquisition.

The defendant was committed to stand trial on second degree murder and aggravated assault.