Edward A. Carlton

The defendant brought a motion to compel production of an Approved Screening Device (ASD) printout and notes from two police officers regarding the storage and handling of the ASD used during a RIDE program stop.

The defendant was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The Crown resisted disclosure, arguing the ASD printout was a third-party record governed by the O'Connor test and that the officer notes were not relevant.

The court found the ASD printout was a third-party record not subject to first-party disclosure obligations and dismissed that portion of the application.

However, the court ordered disclosure of the officer notes from the two assisting officers, finding they were potentially relevant to the defendant's ability to make full answer and defence, particularly given the anticipated evidence regarding ambient temperature conditions and the placement of the ASD prior to testing.

The Crown brought an application under section 714.1 of the Criminal Code seeking to have its central witness in a sexual assault case testify by videolink from Regina, Saskatchewan, rather than attend in person in Barrie, Ontario.

The witness had relocated out of province and faced financial hardship and an unspecified health issue.

The court dismissed the application, finding that where credibility is central to the case and the witness is a primary Crown witness, the defendant's right to make full answer and defence requires the witness to attend in court before the trier of fact.

The court emphasized that while videolink technology is a useful tool, it should not be used where it would impair the defendant's ability to confront the witness and the court's ability to assess credibility through observation of demeanour and facial expressions.

The defendant was charged with unlawful possession of cocaine contrary to section 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance seized was cocaine and that the defendant had knowledge and control of it.

However, the court found that the strip search conducted at the police detachment violated the defendant's Charter rights under section 8 against unreasonable search and seizure.

The search lacked reasonable and probable grounds, was conducted as a matter of routine policy rather than on a case-by-case basis, and was not authorized by a supervisor.

Applying the Grant test under section 24(2) of the Charter, the court found that the seriousness of the Charter violation and its impact on the defendant's protected interests outweighed society's interest in adjudication on the merits, resulting in the exclusion of the evidence and a finding of not guilty.

The Crown appealed sentences imposed on a small roofing company and its owner/supervisor for violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The violations involved failure to provide adequate fall protection to a worker who fell approximately 6 meters from a roof, sustaining serious injuries including a fractured pelvis and broken arms.

The trial judge imposed fines of $1,000 for the company and $500 for the supervisor, placing significant weight on the company's small size and financial circumstances.

The appellate court found the trial judge erred in principle by overemphasizing the company's financial situation and imposed fines that were demonstrably unfit.

The appeal was allowed and fines were increased to $12,000 for the company and $2,000 for the supervisor, with 12 months to pay.

The Crown brought a motion under section 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code seeking an order to allow the complainant to testify by closed-circuit television (CCTV) or, alternatively, behind a screen.

The complainant, now 19 years old, was allegedly sexually assaulted by the defendant between 2008 and 2009 when the complainant was 9 to 11 years old and the defendant was 15 to 17 years old.

The complainant expressed fear of the defendant and stated he would be unable to testify if in the same room.

The court denied the application, finding insufficient evidence to establish that the use of a testimonial aid would facilitate a full and candid account of the evidence.