Edmund King-Leung Chan

J.B., convicted of multiple sexual assault charges, applied to reopen his judge-alone trial before sentencing to admit fresh evidence from the complainant's Victim Impact Statement (VIS) and sought a mistrial.

The new evidence concerned alleged inconsistencies between the VIS and trial testimony regarding physical injuries and school incidents.

The court applied the Palmer test for fresh evidence and the additional considerations from R. v. H.S. for VIS-based applications.

The court found a lack of due diligence by the defence and determined that the new evidence, even if admitted, would not have affected the outcome or B.B.'s credibility, as there were no plain and obvious inconsistencies.

The application to reopen the trial was dismissed, and the conviction stood.

Shahim Shokouh, charged with child pornography offences, brought two pre-trial Charter applications: one alleging a violation of his right to counsel (s. 10(b)) and another alleging an unreasonable search or seizure (s. 8).

The court dismissed both applications.

It found no re-triggering of the right to counsel upon arrest as there was no significant change in legal jeopardy, and police acted in good faith.

Even if a breach occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) due to the minor nature of the breach, minimal impact on the accused's rights, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The court also upheld the validity of the production order (s. 487.014 Criminal Code) and search warrant (s. 487(1)(b) Criminal Code), finding sufficient grounds and rejecting arguments of overbreadth regarding electronic devices.

The defendant, Ryan Patterson, charged with two counts of possession of child pornography, brought an application under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence (an iPod Touch, Samsung tablet, and Dell laptop) seized during the execution of a search warrant.

The court had previously ruled the warrant overbroad and invalidly obtained due to insufficient grounds in the Information to Obtain (ITO) to support the seizure of all listed devices.

Applying the R. v. Grant test, the court found the police conduct was careless but not flagrant, the impact on the accused's privacy was mitigated by discoverability (as grounds *could* have been established for a valid warrant), and society had a strong interest in adjudicating the serious charges on their merits.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The defendant, Ryan Patterson, faced charges of possession of child pornography.

He brought a pre-trial application under s. 8 of the Charter to quash a search warrant for his residence.

The court found the warrant overbroad, as the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient grounds to establish a credibly based probability that a wide range of computer systems and storage devices, beyond a smartphone, would contain evidence of the offence.

The ITO failed to explain how a smartphone-based KIK upload would lead to evidence on other devices.

Consequently, the warrant was quashed due to a violation of the defendant's Section 8 Charter rights.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing several defamation claims arising from a condominium requisition notice seeking his removal as president of the condominium board.

The appellate court found that the impugned words stating that the appellant failed to act honestly and in good faith were capable of being defamatory and that certain respondents had participated in publication of the material.

However, the court held that the respondents established the defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege in the condominium governance context.

The evidence demonstrated a factual foundation for the statements relating to the appellant’s conduct as president.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.