Coroza

The accused were on trial for first degree murder.

During the trial, the defence filed a section 24(1) Charter application alleging a breach due to the Centre of Forensic Sciences consuming a 'negative control' sample during DNA testing.

The Crown sought directions, arguing the court should determine the relevancy of the consumed sample before the Crown's DNA expert testified, and restrict cross-examination if relevance was not established.

The court dismissed the Crown's request, holding that the defence was entitled to cross-examine the expert on the DNA extraction process, including the use and consumption of the negative control.

The court deferred ruling on the Charter application until the end of the trial, when the full evidentiary record would allow for a proper assessment of prejudice.

During a criminal trial, the Crown sought to adduce opinion evidence from a police officer that clothing worn by a male in a surveillance video resembled clothing she had previously observed the accused wearing.

The defence objected, arguing the officer was in no better position than the jury to make this comparison.

The trial judge reconsidered and reversed an earlier ruling, holding that the officer's opinion was not helpful to the trier of fact and was more prejudicial than probative.

The jury, equipped with the video as real evidence, could make the comparison themselves without the officer's narration or opinion.

During a criminal trial, the defence sought to introduce Telus cell phone records as a numbered exhibit during the cross-examination of a Wind Mobile employee.

The Crown objected, arguing the witness could not act as a conduit for records from a different company.

The court allowed the records to be marked as an exhibit, finding them relevant and sufficiently authentic under section 30 of the Canada Evidence Act.

However, the court ruled that the witness could not be questioned on the contents of the Telus records, as she lacked personal knowledge of them.

During a criminal trial, the Crown sought leave to communicate with its witness, a cell phone security analyst, while she was still under cross-examination.

The defence had pointed out a geographical and temporal discrepancy in the cell phone records, and the Crown wished to direct the witness to investigate the discrepancy.

The court granted leave, noting that the witness was providing factual evidence about the operation of the network and that investigating the discrepancy would prevent further delay.

The accused applied to exclude evidence of a marihuana grow operation discovered during a police search of his residence, alleging a violation of his rights under s. 8 of the Charter.

Police responded to a 911 call regarding a male and female fighting.

Upon arrival, the officer was told by a female occupant that her special needs son had made the call while playing with the phone.

The officer conducted a safety sweep of the residence to ensure all occupants were accounted for and safe, discovering marihuana plants in plain view in the furnace room.

The court found the safety sweep was objectively reasonable given the nature of the priority call and the lack of precise information, concluding there was no s. 8 breach.

The court further held that even if a breach occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

In a murder trial, the Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of a 911 call purportedly made by a central Crown witness.

The Crown argued the call was admissible as the best evidence of the event and to rebut recent fabrication.

The defence argued the recording lacked context and amounted to improper oath-helping.

The court ruled the 911 call-back was inadmissible at this stage, finding it devoid of material information and that its admission would serve solely to bolster the witness's credibility before it was attacked, thereby offending the rule against oath-helping.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to admit four out-of-court statements made by a witness, Kulwant Litt, for the truth of their contents under the principled exception to the hearsay rule (a K.G.B. application).

The witness, who is the father of one accused and father-in-law of the other, had previously confessed to his son (acting as a police agent) and the police about the accused's involvement in a murder and the subsequent disposal of the body, but later recanted.

The court found that necessity was established by the recantation and that threshold reliability was met through a combination of procedural reliability (the witness was available for cross-examination and the statements were recorded) and substantive reliability (confirmatory physical evidence and lack of motive to lie at the time).

The statements were ruled admissible.

The accused, charged with historical indecent assaults from the 1970s, brought a motion to introduce evidence of an alternate suspect.

The accused sought to introduce evidence that his daughters were sexually assaulted by their cousin during the same time period and in the same locations.

The court applied the air of reality test and found that the proposed evidence was sufficiently connected to the charges to be relevant and probative.

The court concluded that the probative value of the alternate suspect evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect, and the application was granted.

The parties separated after a 10-year marriage and shared custody of their two children.

The applicant sought an equalization payment of over $64,000, post-separation adjustments, and child support based on imputing the respondent's income.

The respondent sought retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, and a much lower equalization payment.

The court determined the value of the respondent's business and various debts, ordering the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $5,380.27.

The court declined to impute income to the respondent, finding she was not intentionally under-employed.

Given the shared custody arrangement and income disparity, the court ordered the applicant to pay the set-off amount for child support plus spousal support to achieve equal net disposable incomes, including significant retroactive arrears.