C. Martell

The applicant, who was 15 years old and had cognitive limitations at the time of the offences, sought an extension of time to appeal a Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) verdict entered 12 years prior.

The applicant argued that he only recently understood the indefinite nature of the NCR disposition and raised several grounds of appeal, including a flawed plea process and fresh psychiatric evidence suggesting he was not NCR.

The court granted the extension, finding that in cases involving youthful offenders with cognitive deficits, the merit of the appeal is the central factor, and the applicant had demonstrated sufficient merit to justify the extension.

During a trial for kidnapping and robbery, the Crown led cell tower evidence to establish the identity of the accused.

In closing addresses, defense counsel suggested there was a 40 percent error rate regarding the general rule that cell phones connect to the closest tower.

The Crown objected.

The trial judge ruled that because the witnesses did not adopt the proposition of a 40 percent error rate during cross-examination, there was no evidence to support the suggestion.

A corrective instruction was provided to the jury in the final charge.

The Crown applied for mandamus with certiorari in aid to quash a preliminary inquiry decision discharging the accused on robbery-related charges arising from a tractor‑trailer robbery.

The Crown argued the preliminary inquiry judge failed to consider admissible similar fact evidence from other robberies when determining whether there was sufficient evidence to commit the accused to trial.

The court held that the failure to consider the whole of the evidence, including potentially admissible similar fact evidence, constituted a jurisdictional error.

After analyzing the similarities between several robberies and the linkage evidence, the court concluded the similar fact evidence was admissible and that a properly instructed jury could reasonably infer the accused were parties to the July 2 robbery.

The discharges were quashed and the matter was returned to the preliminary inquiry justice with directions to commit the accused to trial.

The Crown brought an application for mandamus with certiorari in aid to seek the committal of the respondents on charges relating to a tractor trailer robbery.

The preliminary inquiry judge had discharged the respondents, finding insufficient evidence to commit them to trial.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the preliminary inquiry judge committed a jurisdictional error by failing to consider the whole of the evidence, specifically the similar fact evidence linking the respondents to other similar robberies.

The court concluded that the similar fact evidence, combined with cell phone location evidence, provided sufficient evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably conclude the respondents were parties to the robbery.

The application was granted and the matter was directed back to the preliminary justice to commit the respondents.