E. Maguire

During a jury trial for first-degree murder, the Crown sought to introduce cell tower evidence showing the accused's phone was turned off or disconnected on several dates prior to the shooting, matching the pattern on the day of the murder.

The defence objected, arguing the evidence was speculative.

The court held that the evidence was not admissible to prove the identity of the shooter, as its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value for that purpose.

However, the court ruled the evidence was admissible as circumstantial evidence of planning and deliberation, provided the jury first found the accused was the shooter.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, brought a motion seeking standing to challenge the search and seizure of electronic data (GPS tracklogs and a phone contact list) extracted from a rental vehicle's infotainment system.

The Crown argued the accused lacked standing because the vehicle was obtained under false pretenses and the phone belonged to a third party.

The court applied the Marakah framework and found that the accused had a direct interest and an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the electronic data, as it had the potential to reveal intimate biographical details.

The accused was granted standing to argue the Section 8 Charter breach.

The accused was charged with multiple offences including sexual assault causing bodily harm, choking during sexual assault, and break and enter arising from violent attacks against two elderly neighbours.

The defence argued that the accused’s actions were the result of non‑insane automatism caused by a neurological event, relying on expert evidence that a temporal lobe seizure likely triggered the behaviour.

The Crown challenged the reliability of that opinion and argued the conduct was voluntary or alternatively that any automatistic state resulted from a disease of the mind.

The court accepted the neurologist’s evidence and found the accused was most likely in an automatistic state caused by a transient medical condition and not a disease of the mind.

As voluntariness was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused was acquitted.