Darren Sederoff

The accused was charged with possession of a loaded restricted firearm after police found a handgun in an apartment rented by his girlfriend.

The Crown's case relied on the accused's fingerprints on the firearm and statements made by the girlfriend to police upon her arrest, claiming the gun belonged to the accused.

The court found the girlfriend's evidence and statements to be unreliable and lacking credibility.

The court held that the fingerprint evidence alone, without corroborating evidence of the accused's presence in the apartment or knowledge of the firearm's character, was insufficient to establish constructive possession.

The accused was found not guilty.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought pre-trial applications under ss. 276 and 278.92 of the Criminal Code to admit text messages and a 31-second video recording of the alleged incident.

The text messages detailed a transactional agreement for sex negotiated on a dating app.

The court found the text messages and video recording had significant probative value regarding the issue of consent that outweighed the danger of prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

The applications were granted, and the evidence was ruled admissible at trial subject to specific conditions to protect the complainant's privacy.

The offender was convicted of production of marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking after being found acting as a gardener in a commercial grow operation with nearly 500 plants.

He brought a constitutional challenge arguing that the one-year mandatory minimum sentence under s. 7(2)(b)(iii) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act violated s. 12 of the Charter, primarily because it would result in his deportation.

The court dismissed the application, finding that a one-year sentence was within the appropriate range for the offence and was not grossly disproportionate for the offender or a reasonable hypothetical offender.

During a murder trial involving multiple accused, the Crown brought a motion asking the court to reconsider a prior evidentiary ruling admitting a hearsay statement from a former girlfriend of an alleged alternate suspect.

The Crown argued new evidence from two witnesses and digital communications demonstrated a strong motive for the declarant to fabricate the statement.

The court held that the new evidence constituted a material change in circumstances permitting reconsideration of the earlier ruling.

However, applying the relaxed threshold reliability standard applicable to defence evidence, the judge concluded the statement retained some reliability and should remain admissible.

The Crown was permitted to call reply evidence from the new witnesses to challenge the credibility and reliability of the hearsay statement.

In a multi‑accused murder trial, the Crown sought to introduce a PowerPoint presentation prepared by an Ontario Provincial Police analyst summarizing extensive cell phone records already entered in evidence.

Defence counsel objected, arguing the presentation was redundant, prejudicial, and effectively allowed the Crown to present its theory of the case twice.

The court held that the PowerPoint itself was not evidence but an illustrative aid reorganizing evidence already admitted.

Although useful and reliable, its probative value was outweighed by prejudice arising from duplication, significant trial time, and the unfair advantage of allowing the Crown to present its theory through a witness before closing submissions.

The court excluded the presentation from evidence but permitted the Crown to use it in closing argument and ordered the Crown to disclose the presentation to defence counsel in editable PowerPoint format.

During a joint first‑degree murder trial, concerns arose that the spouse of a juror had attended court proceedings and communicated limited information about the case to the juror via text messages and made comments in the courthouse hallway supportive of a police witness.

Following two judicial inquiries, the accused sought either a mistrial or the discharge of the juror on the basis of juror contamination and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court held that although the spouse’s conduct demonstrated poor judgment, there was no evidence that the juror discussed the case with the spouse or was influenced by her views.

Applying the presumption of juror impartiality and the reasonable apprehension of bias test, the court found no basis to conclude the juror could not remain independent and impartial.

The mistrial application and request to discharge the juror were denied, though the spouse was excluded from further attendance at the trial.

During a criminal jury trial, information emerged that the spouse of a juror had attended the proceedings and made comments supportive of a police witness, including remarks to the investigating officer.

The court had previously conducted an inquiry after learning the juror had received text messages from the spouse about events occurring in the courtroom.

Following new evidence from a detective about additional comments by the spouse, the court considered whether further inquiry of the jury was necessary.

Applying appellate guidance on allegations of improper juror contact, the court held that the potential taint of prejudice required a supplementary inquiry.

The judge directed that limited additional questions be put to the implicated juror to determine whether the spouse’s opinions had been communicated and whether they affected impartiality.

In a multi‑accused murder trial arising from a home invasion in which one victim was killed and another survived, a co‑accused sought to exclude a text message sent on the day of the offence stating “To after work ok will be game time.” The moving party argued the text was an ambiguous fragment whose meaning could only be determined through speculation and should therefore be excluded under the probative value versus prejudicial effect analysis.

The court distinguished authorities dealing with incomplete overheard utterances, finding the text was a stand‑alone statement capable of interpretation when viewed alongside earlier communications among the accused.

When considered in context with prior text exchanges suggesting planning activity, the message was capable of supporting an inference relevant to the identity and involvement of the accused.

The court held the text possessed probative value that outweighed any prejudicial effect and declined to exclude it.