D. Hackett

The Crown brought a mid-trial application to admit an out-of-court hearsay statement of the complainant pursuant to the principled approach to hearsay established in R. v. Khelawon.

The complainant's trial testimony was inconsistent with her earlier statement to police.

The court applied the two-part test requiring the Crown to establish both necessity and threshold reliability on a balance of probabilities.

The court found that necessity was met because the complainant's trial testimony did not support the charges, whereas her prior statement did.

The court also found threshold reliability was established through multiple indicia including the complainant's corroborating testimony in-chief regarding certain incidents, the officer's careful documentation and questioning technique, the spontaneity of the statement, the complainant's clear mental state, and her availability for cross-examination.

The application was granted and the statement was admitted for the truth of its contents.

The Crown brought a motion to admit two out-of-court hearsay statements during a trial on an assault charge arising from a domestic dispute.

The statements consisted of a 911 recording and police notebook statements.

The court applied the principled approach to hearsay exceptions, examining both necessity and threshold reliability.

The complainant claimed memory loss regarding the events.

The court found that the Crown met its burden on both prongs of the test and admitted both the 911 tape and the police notebook statements for the truth of their contents.

The accused was convicted of obstruct police, personation, and possession of marijuana, and acquitted of three counts of assault police and one count of threatening an officer.

The court found breaches of sections 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to extensive police misconduct, including excessive force, collusion, and false testimony.

The Crown sought a reduced sentence as the remedy, while the defence sought a stay of proceedings.

The court granted a stay of proceedings for all three remaining offences, finding that the depth and breadth of police misconduct—including failure to address injuries, false statements to superiors, unchallenged assault, collusion in notes and testimony, and excessive force against a restrained and defenceless accused—was so egregious that only a stay could adequately address the damage to the integrity of the justice system.

The accused was charged with uttering threats, assault on three police officers, obstruction of justice, fraudulent personation, and possession of marijuana following his arrest for public intoxication.

The trial examined events occurring on January 5-6, 2012, spanning arrest, transport, booking, strip search, and cell detention.

The court found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused obstructed police by falsely identifying himself as his brother Richard Young and was in possession of marijuana.

However, the Crown failed to prove the threat and assault charges.

The court found the defence established on a balance of probabilities that the accused's Charter rights under sections 7 and 12 were violated through excessive force applied by police at the booking parade and in the holding cell.

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a roadside screening device (ASD) sample contrary to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged the accused made multiple unsuccessful attempts to provide a breath sample after being lawfully demanded to do so.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the demand on two grounds: (1) the delay between formation of reasonable suspicion and the demand, and (2) the officer's opinion that the ASD was in proper working order.

The court found the demand unlawful because the officer lacked an objectively reasonable basis to believe the device would produce a proper analysis, as it lacked the required calibration sticker and the officer had not verified the device's testing status.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and over .08 following a R.I.D.E. stop on November 28, 2009.

The Crown relied on observations by the arresting officer, a roadside screening device test result showing a fail, and breathalyzer test results.

The defence challenged the grounds for both the approved screening device demand and the breathalyzer demand, as well as whether the tests were administered as soon as practicable.

The court found the officer had reasonable grounds for both demands and that the tests were administered promptly.

However, the court found insufficient evidence of impairment based on the officer's observations alone, without expert evidence linking the breathalyzer readings to impairment at the time of driving.

The accused was acquitted of impaired driving but convicted of over .08.