Dennis Lenzin

This ruling addresses the admissibility of evidence in a first-degree murder trial.

The court considered the admissibility of crime scene and autopsy photographs, evidence of the accused's knife collection, and proposed expert psychiatric testimony.

The court admitted several panoramic and autopsy photographs, requiring editing for some to minimize prejudice, while excluding others deemed repetitive or overly graphic.

Evidence that the accused possessed a knife collection was deemed admissible through police testimony, but the physical knives or their photographs were excluded due to high prejudicial effect outweighing marginal probative value.

The proposed expert evidence from a forensic psychiatrist, intended to explain the accused's actions based on past trauma, was ruled inadmissible as it failed the necessity criterion, amounted to impermissible oath-helping, and encroached on the jury's function to assess intent and self-defence.

The defendant was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired and while having an excessive blood alcohol concentration after being found asleep behind the wheel of his parked car in an underground garage at the Rogers Centre.

The Crown conceded that the statutory presumption of care or control was rebutted.

The sole issue was whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had actual care or control of the vehicle.

The court applied the analytical framework from R. v. Boudreault and found that while certain factors favored the Crown, the totality of circumstances—including that the vehicle was parked as the defendant's intended destination for sleeping, was not running, was in a fully reclined position, and the defendant had no reason to drive until after completing his next work shift—did not establish a realistic risk of danger.

The defendant was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving, driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit (over 80), and stunt racing (exceeding the speed limit by more than 50 km/hr).

The defendant challenged the admissibility of breath test evidence, claiming a violation of her right to counsel under the Charter.

The court found the defendant not guilty of impaired driving but guilty of over 80 and stunt racing.

The court rejected the Charter argument, finding the police made reasonable efforts to locate counsel of choice and that the defendant's testimony regarding denial of cell phone access was not credible.