Daniel Galluzzo

The applicant, charged with obtaining sexual services for consideration, brought an application under s. 8 of the Charter to exclude text messages and identification evidence.

The police had photographed text messages between the applicant and the complainant on the complainant's phone with her consent, and showed her a single photograph of the applicant to confirm his identity.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages voluntarily shared by the recipient, and that the identification evidence was reliable recognition evidence rather than a tainted identification.

The accused was charged with assault, uttering threats, and sexual assault against his estranged wife while they continued to reside in the matrimonial home.

The court assessed the conflicting testimony of the parties, noting animosity related to family law proceedings and infidelity.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the accused guilty of assault and uttering threats, as the complainant's evidence was corroborated by their son's testimony.

However, the court acquitted the accused of sexual assault, finding that the accused's denial and the lack of supporting evidence raised a reasonable doubt.

The Crown appealed a conditional discharge imposed on the respondent for a sexual assault committed while highly intoxicated.

The respondent had briefly groped the victim over her clothing at a university banquet.

The Crown argued the trial judge erred in principle by overemphasizing intoxication as a mitigating factor, relying on distinguishable case law, and failing to properly weigh general deterrence and denunciation.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in principle and concluding that the sentence, while at the low end of the range, was not demonstrably unfit given the high degree of deference owed to sentencing judges.