Craig Zeeh

In a pre-trial ruling for a first-degree murder trial, the accused applied to exclude security video surveillance recordings obtained by police from the common areas of his apartment building.

The accused argued the warrantless seizure violated his s. 8 Charter rights.

The court dismissed the application, finding the accused had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of the 246-unit building.

The court further held that even if a breach occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter as the police acted in good faith and the evidence was highly reliable and important to the case.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder and indignity to a dead body, brought a pre-trial motion to exclude evidence seized from his apartment during warranted searches, alleging multiple Charter breaches.

The police had initially made a warrantless entry into the accused's apartment under exigent circumstances after discovering a dismembered body nearby.

The court found that while looking through the mail slot and failing to provide the right to counsel upon initial detention violated the Charter, the warrantless entry itself was justified under s. 487.11 of the Criminal Code.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the cumulative effect of the Charter breaches did not warrant exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2), as the police acted in good faith, the impact on protected interests was minimal due to discoverability, and society's interest in adjudicating the serious charges on the merits was high.

The application was dismissed.

This pre-trial ruling addressed the admissibility of the defendant's statement to the police.

The court found the statement to be voluntary, rejecting arguments of exhaustion, physical discomfort, mental state, or police trickery.

However, the court determined that the defendant's s. 10(b) Charter rights were violated in two ways: first, when the defendant expressed confusion about whether he had spoken to a lawyer, triggering a duty for police to offer a second consultation; and second, when the police questioning shifted to a significantly more serious offense (murder) without re-advising the defendant of his right to counsel.

Applying the R. v. Grant factors, the court concluded that the Charter-infringing state conduct, despite not being in bad faith, was serious and had a significant impact on the defendant's Charter-protected interests.

On balance, the admission of the statement would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, leading to its exclusion under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with importing heroin after arriving at Pearson International Airport.

Border Services Officers suspected he was inadmissible and, after conducting a targeted internet search about drug routes from Uganda, asked him if he had swallowed drugs without providing Charter cautions.

The accused admitted to swallowing drugs and subsequently expelled heroin pellets.

The court found the questioning had escalated beyond routine screening into a focused investigation, resulting in a detention that breached the accused's rights under ss. 7, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2).

Jayme Syring pleaded guilty to four counts of impaired care or control causing bodily harm and one count of failing to stop at the scene of an accident.

The offences stemmed from a single-vehicle rollover where Syring, impaired by alcohol, injured his common-law spouse and her three young children, who were not properly secured, and then fled the scene.

The court considered aggravating factors including the serious nature of the offences, the abandonment of injured victims, Syring's lengthy criminal record, and his substance abuse issues.

Mitigating factors included his guilty plea, remorse, and initial steps towards addressing his addiction.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for drinking and driving offences causing bodily harm.

A penitentiary sentence of two years and two months was imposed after credit for pre-sentence custody, along with a three-year driving prohibition and a DNA order.

The accused, Richard Bennett, sought to introduce alternate suspect evidence in his first-degree murder trial.

The application concerned four individuals: Jason Bynoe, Nathanial Gibbs, Shaka Reid, and John Gardner.

The court dismissed the application regarding Bynoe and Gibbs due to insufficient connection to the crime, primarily relying on propensity evidence without sufficient opportunity or direct link.

However, the court granted the application in part, allowing the introduction of alternate suspect evidence for Shaka Reid and John Gardner, finding sufficient probative value based on the accused's own statements implicating Reid and Gardner's inconsistent statements, suspicious conduct, and unpublicized knowledge of crime details.

The court rejected the Crown's "additional suspect" argument, affirming that such evidence could address the accused's level of culpability.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, sought production of third-party police records from the Toronto Police Service concerning five individuals for an alternate suspects application.

The Crown opposed, arguing a lack of likely relevance.

The court applied the two-stage O'Connor test, finding the applicant met the threshold for likely relevance.

After an in camera inspection, the court ordered the production of relevant and redacted excerpts from two police occurrence reports related to two of the five individuals, subject to strict conditions, while denying production for the others.

The Crown sought to admit evidence of a violent rivalry between two criminal groups, the Asian Assassinz and the Chin Pac, to establish motive and intention in a first-degree murder trial.

The respondent, alleged to be associated with the Chin Pac, was charged with the murder of an individual associated with the Asian Assassinz.

The defence opposed the admission of this evidence, citing prejudicial impact and lack of probative value.

The court ruled the evidence admissible, finding its probative value on motive and intention outweighed its prejudicial effect, provided appropriate limiting instructions were given to the jury.

The applicant sought Garofoli relief excluding wiretap, tracking, surveillance, hallway video, and search warrant evidence obtained during a drug investigation that later intersected with a first degree murder prosecution.

The court found that one assertion in the ITO inaccurately stated the applicant was directly observed in a bag exchange with a major drug target, and that assertion had to be excised.

However, applying the Garofoli framework, the court held the affiant honestly and reasonably believed the applicant was involved based on circumstantial evidence, leaving sufficient reliable grounds to support the Part VI authorization and tracking warrant.

The hallway camera installation in the condominium common area breached s. 8 of the Charter because it was not specifically authorized, but the evidence was admitted under s. 24(2).

All exclusion applications were dismissed.