Colleen Hepburn

The accused was charged with possessing and accessing child pornography.

He brought a Charter application alleging violations of section 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) and sought exclusion of computer-related evidence.

The court found that the police conducted a warrantless search of the accused's home computer relying solely on the consent of his common-law spouse, which was insufficient as a third party cannot waive another's Charter rights.

The police also failed to comply with sections 489.1 and 490 of the Criminal Code regarding the detention and reporting of seized property.

Additionally, the information to obtain the search warrant was misleading and incomplete.

The court excluded all computer-generated evidence and any derivative evidence.

The accused was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drugs contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that on May 9, 2014, the accused drove while impaired.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of the investigation, alleging Charter breaches under sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found that the investigating officer had reasonable and probable grounds to make a breathalyzer demand, that the drug evaluation demand was made as soon as practicable, and that the accused's Charter rights were not infringed.

The court found the accused guilty based on evidence of impairment by both alcohol and drugs.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while the concentration of alcohol in his blood exceeded the legal limit contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of his rights under sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Charter.

The court found that the accused was unlawfully arrested without reasonable and probable grounds, subjected to unlawful breath and blood demands, and that his privacy interests were violated during hospital detention.

The court also found that the search warrant used to seize the blood sample was invalid due to material non-disclosure and misleading information in the Information to Obtain.

The court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of these breaches, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Crown appealed acquittals on charges including theft over $5,000, possession of stolen property, fraud, false pretences, and making a false statement to obtain a loan arising from a business loan secured by equipment.

The trial judge concluded there was reasonable doubt regarding the accused’s intent to breach the criminal law, largely because the accused intended to repay the loan.

The appellate court held the trial judge’s reasons were insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review and failed to explain how credibility findings or the evidence supported the acquittals.

The court also found an error of law in treating an intention to repay as negating fraudulent intent, contrary to established jurisprudence.

The Crown appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.