Emilie Farrell

This criminal trial involved charges against Zekeim Ogilvie (13 offences) and Akol Akol (15 offences, including enabling escape) stemming from a shooting incident.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance, cell phone data, and GPS data from a rented vehicle.

The court meticulously analyzed the identification evidence for Ogilvie and the elements of aiding and abetting for Akol.

The judge found that the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for either accused on any count, emphasizing the need to avoid speculation and conjecture when drawing inferences from circumstantial evidence.

Both defendants were acquitted.

The Crown sought to admit recognition evidence from Det. Walrond, identifying the accused, Zekeim Ogilvie, on a video recording related to a shooting.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine threshold admissibility based on the Berhe and Hudson tests.

The court found that Det. Walrond's prior acquaintance with Mr. Ogilvie, primarily a 53-minute police interview, did not afford him a sufficient level of familiarity to provide valuable and otherwise unavailable identifying information regarding Ogilvie's gait, movement, facial features, complexion, hairline, and hairstyle.

The court also noted that the trial judge had sufficient opportunity and other evidence (like a photograph) to make their own assessment.

Consequently, the Crown's application for the admission of Det. Walrond's recognition evidence was dismissed.

Zekeim Ogilvie, charged with multiple offences related to a shooting, brought a pre-trial Charter application to exclude evidence (an iPhone and its data) obtained from a vehicle search.

He argued the warrantless search, conducted under the Liquor Licence Act, violated his section 8 and 9 Charter rights due to a lack of reasonable and probable grounds.

The court examined whether Ogilvie, as a passenger, had standing to challenge the search by establishing a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle.

Despite owning the iPhone found in the vehicle, the court found that he did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle as a whole, given the significantly reduced privacy interest in vehicles, especially for non-owner passengers.

Consequently, the court ruled that Ogilvie lacked standing to challenge the validity of the search, and his application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.