D. Rechtshaffen

The three accused were charged with multiple firearms and drug trafficking offences after police executed a search warrant at an apartment and found large quantities of drugs and two handguns.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance showing the accused coming and going from the building, and the presence of two of the accused in the apartment during the raid.

The court found that while the evidence established the apartment was a stash house, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control of the contraband, as there was a reasonable alternative inference that the drugs and guns belonged exclusively to the tenant of the apartment.

During an ongoing trial for possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, a voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of surveillance video clips from an apartment building.

The defence challenged the authenticity of the video due to time stamp discrepancies and jumps in the recording.

The court applied section 31.1 of the Canada Evidence Act and the test from R. v. Bulldog, finding that the Crown only needed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the video was a substantially accurate and fair representation of what it purported to show.

The court held that the time jumps were attributable to the camera being motion-activated and the time stamp was inaccurate to a provable degree, ruling the video admissible.

The accused was tried on a 17‑count indictment arising from a prolonged abusive domestic relationship, including allegations of sexual assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, threats, criminal harassment, breaches of probation, firearm offences, and obstruction of justice.

The court admitted evidence of prior violence within the relationship as relevant propensity and contextual evidence but declined to admit certain extrinsic similar fact evidence involving another partner.

After assessing credibility under the framework in R. v. W. (D.), the court rejected the accused’s evidence and largely accepted the complainant’s account despite her admitted prior recantations and false statements, finding these occurred within a coercive and abusive context.

The court found the accused sexually assaulted the complainant with a weapon, forcibly confined her, threatened her, breached probation, committed mischief, and engaged in criminal harassment and threats intended to obstruct justice.

The court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the object used was a firearm or that the accused committed certain property and firearms offences.

The accused brought an application in the nature of certiorari seeking to quash a preliminary inquiry committal for trial on charges of trafficking in cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime.

The accused argued the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded jurisdiction because the only identification evidence consisted of in‑dock identification by police witnesses.

The court held that while in‑dock identification evidence is inherently dangerous, it is not presumptively inadmissible and may constitute direct evidence for the purposes of the committal test.

Applying the test from United States of America v. Sheppard and R. v. Arcuri, the court found there was some evidence upon which a properly instructed jury, acting reasonably, could convict.

The preliminary inquiry judge therefore acted within jurisdiction in committing the accused for trial.