Dean Fraser Embry

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on a charge of possessing child pornography.

The trial judge had excluded evidence obtained via a search warrant, finding a violation of s. 8 of the Charter due to insufficient reasonable grounds in the Information to Obtain (ITO) the warrant, particularly concerning the 13-month delay between the alleged offence and the warrant application.

The trial judge also excluded statements made by the respondent, finding a violation of his s. 10(b) right to counsel due to unlawful detention prior to being advised of his rights.

The appeal court upheld the trial judge's findings on both Charter violations and the subsequent exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2), dismissing the Crown's appeal.

The accused was charged with assault, threatening, and use of an imitation firearm while threatening, stemming from incidents on two streetcars.

The accused harassed female passengers, elbowed one, spat at a male passenger, and brandished what appeared to be a gun.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming accidental contact, showing a cell phone holster instead of a weapon, and arguing self-defense.

The court disbelieved the accused's testimony, finding it lacked an air of reality, and credited the corroborating civilian witnesses and security video.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The defense applied for a mistrial due to a mid-trial breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship between the accused and his former counsel, Uma Kancharla.

The breakdown stemmed from counsel's application for a psychiatric assessment of the accused's fitness to stand trial, which the accused opposed.

The defense argued that counsel's actions prejudiced the accused and constituted a breach of privilege, effectively depriving him of counsel.

The court found that counsel acted properly in raising the fitness issue, disclosed minimal privileged information, and that the accused's rights were protected.

The application for a mistrial was dismissed, emphasizing that such declarations are a last resort.

The accused was charged with accessing child pornography contrary to section 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

The defence brought Charter applications challenging the validity of the search warrant under section 8 and alleging breaches of the right to counsel under section 10(b).

The court found that the Information to Obtain the search warrant contained significant embellishments and generalizations about offender behaviour that were devoid of meaningful factual support.

The court determined that the ITO provided only suspicion and speculation rather than reasonable and probable grounds that evidence would be found at the residence 13 months after the alleged offence.

The court also found multiple breaches of the accused's section 10(b) rights during questioning by police before he was informed of his right to counsel.

Both the physical evidence and the accused's statements were excluded pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter.

The defendant applied for a stay of proceedings pursuant to section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on grounds of unreasonable trial delay.

The defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit fraud over $5,000, fraud over $5,000, and obstructing a peace officer in connection with an alleged staged motor vehicle accident and fraudulent insurance claim.

The charges arose from Project Whiplash, a large-scale investigation involving 38 separately charged individuals.

The court conducted an attribution analysis of the delay periods and found that approximately 8 months of the 16-month total delay constituted neutral intake procedures inherent to the case, while 7 months represented systemic institutional delay.

The court determined that the defendant suffered only modest actual and inferred prejudice and that society's interest in a trial on the merits outweighed the defendant's interest in prompt adjudication.

The application was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to three charges: mischief under $5,000 by interference with an ATM, possession of a forgery device (skimmer device), and possession of a credit card obtained by crime.

The accused was observed manipulating an ATM where a skimmer device and pinhole camera had been installed to steal debit card data and record PINs.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with 12 months probation, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court rejected both positions, finding that incarceration was necessary but that a conditional sentence was appropriate given the accused's youth, first-offender status, and the need to balance general deterrence with rehabilitation principles.