Elizabeth Anne Bingham

The accused was charged with multiple Criminal Code offences including uttering threats, assault, assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, sexual assault with a weapon, mischief, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, making child pornography, and voyeurism.

He was also charged with Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences including trafficking cocaine, production of marijuana, possession of marijuana for trafficking, and possession of cocaine.

The trial hinged on the credibility of the complainant and a second witness.

The court found both witnesses to be unreliable, manipulative, and not credible.

The accused testified that the activities were consensual BDSM play.

The court acquitted the accused of all Criminal Code charges and found him guilty of possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana (as a lesser included offence to trafficking), but not guilty of trafficking cocaine or production of marijuana.

In a trial for second-degree murder, the accused brought a pre-trial application to exclude or edit a video recording of the killing, arguing the graphic images would inflame the jury.

The Crown voluntarily edited the video to conceal the pooling of blood and the gunshot wound to the deceased's head.

The court ruled the edited video recording was admissible, finding its probative value in showing the factual circumstances of the murder substantially outweighed any potential prejudice to the accused.

The appellant appealed from convictions for possession for the purpose of trafficking in crystal methamphetamine and cocaine, possession of marihuana, and possession of proceeds of crime.

Drugs and cash were found in the appellant's apartment pursuant to a search warrant obtained in relation to alleged criminal activity by the appellant's former roommate.

The appellant claimed he did not know the drugs were in his apartment and that the cash came from legitimate sources.

The Court of Appeal rejected three grounds of appeal: that the trial judge erred in finding sufficient basis for the search warrant, that she erred in assessing the appellant's credibility, and that her reasons for conviction were insufficient.

The appeal was allowed only to the extent of vacating the conviction for possession of marihuana, as the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to hear that count as a summary conviction offence.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing it was unfit and challenging the pre-trial custody credit.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence was at the high end of the range but noted no error in principle, given the appellant's lengthy criminal record and the aggravating factor of committing the offence with his son.

The court also deferred to the trial judge's determination of pre-trial custody credit.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed an acquittal, arguing the trial judge erred in finding a police search of a hotel bedroom was not a justified safety search and in excluding the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the officers had predetermined to conduct the search before arriving, which supported the trial judge's conclusion that there was no reasonable apprehension of imminent harm.

The Court found no basis to interfere with the exclusion of evidence, as the trial judge did not find the search was conducted in good faith.

A preliminary inquiry into the first-degree murder of Rala Fredrick, who was shot execution-style on George Street in Toronto on July 6, 2014.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on eyewitness testimony from individuals at a men's shelter who were under the influence of drugs and alcohol, combined with CCTV surveillance footage.

No direct evidence linked either defendant to the shooting, no gun was recovered, and no witness identified the shooter.

The judge found sufficient circumstantial evidence to commit both defendants to trial, though expressed serious reservations about the weakness of the case, particularly regarding eyewitness reliability and inconsistencies in their descriptions.

The applicant sought review of a detention order in a prosecution involving large-scale cocaine trafficking, firearms trafficking, and proceeds of crime, money laundering, and fraud allegations.

The court held that the applicant failed to discharge the onus under s. 520 of the Criminal Code on the primary and secondary grounds, given the strength of the case, use of aliases and false documents, international connections, prior related record, and evidence of sophisticated ongoing criminal activity.

Although the court found the tertiary ground did not independently bar release, the proposed sureties lacked sufficient knowledge of and influence over the applicant, and the proposed GPS monitoring arrangement could not cure those deficiencies.

The bail review application was dismissed.

In this drug trafficking trial arising from Project Wanipitee, the court applied the Carter test to determine whether intercepted communications could be admitted under the co-conspirator's exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found that a joint enterprise existed between the accused and others to traffic cocaine in the Durham Region.

The court identified the accused on intercepted communications through circumstantial evidence including surveillance, text message patterns, and physical movements.

The court convicted the accused of trafficking cocaine on two dates and possession of cocaine for trafficking purposes.

The court acquitted on charges related to marijuana possession and possession of cocaine at a separate location due to insufficient evidence of possession and control.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for uttering threats against a correctional officer and the 90‑day consecutive custodial sentence imposed.

The appeal alleged that the trial judge misapprehended the significance of video evidence and improperly relied on opinion evidence regarding intent.

The Superior Court held that the trial judge materially misapprehended the video evidence by treating it as directly contradicting the appellant’s account when it merely lacked audio and did not capture all interactions.

Because credibility was central and the video evidence was heavily relied upon in the reasoning process, the misapprehension constituted a reversible error.

The conviction appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered, while the sentence appeal was dismissed.