Christina Jabbour

On a pre-trial motion in a first degree murder prosecution, the applicant sought exclusion of proposed after-the-fact conduct evidence tendered by the Crown on the issue of identity.

The court applied the governing framework for admissibility of after-the-fact conduct evidence, focusing on relevance, materiality, and the balance between probative value and prejudicial effect.

Evidence that the accused did not return to his residence after the homicide and left belongings there, as well as evidence of the circumstances of his arrest, was held admissible.

Evidence of police efforts to locate the accused at unrelated locations before his arrest was excluded as irrelevant because there was no evidentiary foundation to infer he would be expected to be found there.

In a first degree murder prosecution arising from an alleged intimate partner homicide, the court determined multiple pre-trial evidentiary motions concerning ante mortem statements, hearsay, and prior discreditable conduct.

Applying the traditional state of mind exception and the principled hearsay approach, the court admitted the deceased's August 15, 2022 police statement in edited form, together with threatening August 14, 2022 text messages, because those items were highly probative of motive, animus, identity, and level of culpability.

The court excluded several other statements to co-workers, the father, and a lawyer where threshold reliability was not established or the probative value was tenuous and outweighed by prejudice.

The defence was permitted to introduce the deceased's August 15, 2022 texts to her sister and the accused as contextual evidence relevant to ultimate reliability.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle under section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the accused drove a Honda Odyssey van to his wife's workplace while impaired by alcohol.

The defence argued that the accused did not drive the vehicle; rather, his cousin drove it while the accused sat in the passenger seat.

The trial judge found that the Crown's evidence was internally inconsistent and contradictory regarding whether the accused was in the driver's seat or had care or control of the vehicle.

The Crown witnesses gave conflicting accounts of the accused's position when first observed by police.

The trial judge preferred the credible testimony of the accused's wife and the defence witnesses, which established that the accused's cousin drove the vehicle.

The trial judge found reasonable doubt on the issue of care or control and acquitted the accused.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit following a multi-vehicle collision in Toronto.

The trial was blended with a Charter voir dire addressing numerous constitutional and procedural issues.

The court found that while the Crown proved the defendant was the driver of the vehicle involved, it failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

Additionally, the court found breaches of the defendant's Charter rights regarding the right to counsel and the timing of breath sample demands.

The breath test evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter due to serious breaches of the right to counsel.

Both charges were dismissed and the defendant was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit contrary to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant challenged the constitutionality of the officer's request that he blow on the officer's finger to determine if he had been drinking, arguing it violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown argued the officer took reasonable investigative steps authorized under s. 48 of the Highway Traffic Act and that any Charter violation was justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

The court found the officer's conduct was authorized by law, reasonable, and justified, and convicted the defendant.