C. Morris

The offenders were sentenced for their roles in an unprovoked and fatal beating of a stranger.

Patrick Smith was convicted of second degree murder and assault, and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a 12-year parole ineligibility period.

Matthew Moreira was convicted of manslaughter and robbery, and was sentenced to a total of 13 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court considered the brutal nature of the attack, the offenders' backgrounds, and the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The Crown brought an application to admit the notes and property reports of a deceased police officer under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The officer, who had participated in the execution of search warrants related to the accused's drug charges, died of a fentanyl overdose before trial.

While necessity was conceded, the court found the Crown failed to establish threshold reliability.

The court noted inaccuracies in the officer's reports, potential inconsistencies with other evidence, and the inability to cross-examine the officer on his drug use and its potential impact on his perception and memory.

The application was dismissed.

The accused brought a Charter motion to exclude evidence, including a loaded restricted firearm, found during a police investigation at an apartment building.

The police attended the building after receiving an anonymous tip about a gun.

The court found that the police breached the accused's section 8, 9, and 10(b) rights during his initial detention and search, and breached his section 8 rights by entering his apartment without a warrant.

However, the court held that neither accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common hallway where the firearm was discovered inside a plant cylinder.

The court also upheld the validity of a subsequent search warrant for the apartment.

As a result, the firearm and evidence found during the warranted search were ruled admissible.

The Crown sought judicial directions regarding execution of a search warrant for a seized cell phone where communications between the accused and his lawyer might be present.

Evidence indicated frequent contact between the accused’s phone and the lawyer’s phone number, raising a realistic risk that solicitor-client privileged communications could be contained on the device.

Applying the principles from Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz v. Canada (Attorney General), the court held that precautions must be taken to avoid inadvertent disclosure of privileged material to the state.

The court ordered that the phone’s contents be copied by an independent expert and first provided to defence counsel to determine whether privilege would be asserted.

If privilege were claimed, the material would remain sealed with the court pending judicial determination.

The accused was charged with robbing a bank while armed with a restricted or prohibited firearm, using an imitation firearm, threatening death, and breaching probation.

The Crown relied on video surveillance, photographs, and the recognition evidence of two police officers who had prior dealings with the accused.

The court found the identification evidence compelling and convicted the accused of the lesser included offence of using an imitation firearm, as well as threatening death and breaching probation.

In the context of ongoing inspection, receivership, and bankruptcy proceedings involving multiple corporations and a charitable foundation, counsel for the foundation sought a suspension of all proceedings pending determination of a contempt motion brought by the receiver against the foundation’s lawyer.

The moving party argued that the contempt allegation created a professional conflict of interest that would impair counsel’s ability to continue representing the client.

The receiver amended its motion to remove the requested contempt remedy against counsel, while reserving the right to bring such a motion in the future.

The court held that because the contempt relief against counsel had been removed, there was no present basis to suspend the proceedings.

Potential future contempt proceedings were insufficient to justify delaying the matters.