Dale Ives

The Crown brought pre-trial applications to admit text messages extracted from a seized cellphone for the truth of their contents and to qualify a police officer as an expert in drug trafficking.

The accused was charged with possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking after police observed suspected drug transactions and seized fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cocaine from a vehicle.

The court found the text messages were admissible under the principled exception to hearsay, as their content strongly corroborated police surveillance, establishing threshold reliability and necessity.

The court also qualified the officer as an expert, finding his practical experience in the illicit drug trade sufficient despite a lack of formal training.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash committals following a preliminary inquiry on charges of importing cocaine and methamphetamine into Canada and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The applicant argued that the committal was unsupported by evidence because he was not present in the truck when it crossed the border and the case was entirely circumstantial.

The court reviewed the narrow scope of certiorari review of committals and held that jurisdictional error arises only where there is no evidence on an essential element of the offence.

The court concluded that the circumstantial evidence linking the applicant to the truck, the co‑accused, and the transport of contraband was capable of supporting inferences of knowledge, control, and participation in importation.

Although an extension of time to bring the application was granted, the application to quash the committals was dismissed.

Sentencing for aggravated assault where the accused struck the complainant during a confrontation between boaters on a crowded lake.

The blow resulted in catastrophic injury, leaving the complainant permanently blind in one eye.

The court weighed aggravating factors including the permanent nature of the injury and the offender’s prior criminal record, against mitigating factors such as the spontaneous nature of the incident, absence of a weapon, and expression of remorse.

The court held that intermittent sentences for aggravated assault are reserved for limited circumstances such as youthful or first-time offenders with strong rehabilitation prospects.

A custodial sentence was required to emphasize denunciation and general deterrence.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault following a confrontation between boaters on Lake Couchiching during a busy holiday weekend.

The complainant suffered a severe eye injury resulting in permanent loss of vision after being struck during the altercation.

The accused denied striking the complainant and asserted that he approached the other boat only after being invited, raising issues of consent and identity of the assailant.

Applying the principles in R. v. W.(D), the court rejected the defence evidence, accepted the testimony of eyewitnesses, and concluded that the accused intentionally applied force by striking the complainant in the face after climbing onto the complainant’s boat.

The court found the complainant did not consent to any physical confrontation and that the force used objectively carried the risk of bodily harm.

The Crown proved the elements of aggravated assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

During a murder trial, the court was required to determine the admissibility of a statement made by the accused to police after earlier statements had been excluded due to a breach of s. 10(a) of the Charter.

The defence argued the later statement was tainted by the earlier constitutional breach and was not voluntary.

Applying the analytical framework for tainted statements and the common law confessions rule, the court held that the earlier breach had been cured by intervening events, including the accused’s arrest for murder and multiple opportunities to consult counsel.

The court further found the police interview tactics did not constitute inducements or oppression and did not overbear the accused’s will.

The statement was proven voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt and was admissible.

During a murder trial, the Crown sought to admit videotaped out‑of‑court statements made by a witness to undercover officers in a “Mr. Big” operation as substantive evidence under the principled hearsay exception.

The witness recanted or professed lack of memory during cross‑examination under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act.

The court held that although necessity was established, the Crown failed to demonstrate threshold reliability on a balance of probabilities.

The witness’s repeated claims of memory loss prevented meaningful cross‑examination and undermined the jury’s ability to assess reliability.

Additionally, the inducements and incentives inherent in the “Mr. Big” scenario raised serious concerns about the trustworthiness of the statements.

The videotaped statements were therefore ruled inadmissible as substantive evidence.