Cynthia Jennison

The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault, unlawful confinement, attempt to suffocate, and breach of an undertaking.

The charges arose from an encounter with the complainant, who had agreed to provide sexual services for money.

The court found significant issues with the complainant's credibility and reliability, noting her admission to lying under oath and the impact of her fentanyl withdrawal on her memory.

Applying the W.(D.) and Villaroman frameworks, the court concluded that the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, as the circumstantial evidence supported reasonable inferences other than guilt.

The accused was found not guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with second degree murder following the shooting death of his wife in their home.

The accused claimed that unknown female intruders broke in, pistol-whipped him, and shot his wife.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including gunshot residue on the accused's hands, his DNA on the murder weapon and ammunition, and the lack of physical evidence supporting a home invasion or struggle.

The court rejected the accused's exculpatory statements as unbelievable and found the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused shot his wife.

The accused was found guilty of second degree murder.

The accused applied to exclude evidence obtained from extensive computer searches conducted during a child pornography investigation arising from purchases linked to the AZOV website.

The court held that although the search warrant was validly issued and police were entitled to investigate, the method of execution violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Police conducted a sweeping file‑by‑file search of approximately 40 terabytes of digital storage without first using targeted search parameters tied to the specific information known to them.

The court found the search overly intrusive given the narrow investigative grounds and concluded that police failed to pursue the least intrusive means available.

Applying the framework in R. v. Grant, the court excluded most of the discovered child pornography evidence under s. 24(2), admitting only evidence directly tied to the specific AZOV downloads known to investigators.