Deborah Krick

The appellants were convicted by a jury of procuring a person to provide sexual services and receiving a material benefit from sexual services.

On appeal, they argued the trial judge misdirected the jury on the essential elements of the offences.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the jury was not properly instructed that exercising control, direction, or influence over a person's movements generally requires proof of more than an isolated act and involves an assessment of the power dynamic in the relationship.

The misdirection on the procuring counts also undermined the material benefit convictions.

The Court declined to apply the curative proviso, allowed the appeals, and ordered new trials.

The appellant appealed his firearms convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in denying him leave to cross-examine the affiant of a search warrant during a Garofoli application.

The police had conducted warrantless surveillance in the underground garage of the appellant's condominium to corroborate confidential informant tips, but omitted key details about this surveillance from the Information to Obtain (ITO).

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the garage and the information obtained, and that the trial judge erred in denying leave to cross-examine the affiant on the surveillance and the omissions in the ITO.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered.