Erin Norman

The applicant brought a Garofoli application to exclude evidence obtained from a search of his residence and motor vehicle, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained material misrepresentations and omissions.

The court found that the affiant included misleading information regarding a witness's belief about whether a firearm was real and whether it was kept at the applicant's residence.

Concluding that the affiant lacked reasonable and probable grounds to authorize the search, the court found a breach of the applicant's s. 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, emphasizing the serious impact of the breach on the applicant's privacy interests in his home.

The defendant was convicted of sexual assault following a trial.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of two to three years, while the defendant sought an intermittent jail sentence.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less one day in a provincial reformatory followed by 18 months probation.

The court considered the seriousness of the offense, the defendant's youth and first-offender status, the significant psychological harm to the complainant, and the collateral consequences of imprisonment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A show cause hearing on bail for a defendant charged with numerous firearms offences arising from an incident on April 15, 2019.

The defendant was alleged to have fled from police while carrying three loaded handguns, which were abandoned in publicly accessible locations.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The defendant proposed a strict release plan with a 24-hour curfew and four proposed sureties.

The court found the defendant met his onus on the primary ground but failed to overcome the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention.

The court was particularly concerned with the credibility of the proposed sureties, the defendant's apparent criminal lifestyle, and the absence of evidence of the defendant's commitment to supervision.

The court also considered the COVID-19 pandemic context and expert evidence regarding jail conditions, but concluded that the serious nature of the allegations and likelihood of conviction outweighed the health concerns.

Sohail Rajan's fourth bail application, heard via audioconference due to COVID-19.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the exclusion of a firearm from evidence and the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on correctional institutions.

The secondary ground (risk to public safety) was satisfied due to the weakened Crown case, accumulated pre-trial custody, and a robust bail plan including sureties and GPS monitoring.

The tertiary ground (maintaining public confidence) was fundamentally altered by the pandemic, as a reasonable and informed public would be concerned about the health risks in jails.

The applicant, suffering from psoriasis, was deemed more vulnerable.

The court granted bail with strict conditions, including house arrest, three sureties, and GPS monitoring with direct police notification for alerts.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault against a young adult female complainant.

The Crown alleged non-consensual sexual intercourse.

The defendant raised the defence of consent or, alternatively, an honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The trial court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness and rejected the defendant's testimony regarding consent.

The court found that the defendant knew the complainant did not consent to sexual intercourse and proceeded anyway, taking advantage of her silence and acquiescence.

The defendant was convicted of sexual assault.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg/100 ml.

At trial, it was found that the police breached his Charter rights by arbitrarily detaining him for five hours after his breath tests, as the officer in charge had no notes explaining the detention.

The trial judge declined to stay the proceedings under s. 24(1) and held that s. 24(2) was not applicable because the breath tests were completed before the over-holding occurred.

On appeal, the court found no error in refusing a stay of proceedings.

However, the appeal court held that the trial judge erred in finding s. 24(2) inapplicable, as there was a sufficient temporal and contextual connection between the breath tests and the subsequent unlawful detention.

Applying the Grant framework, the appeal court concluded that the admission of the breath test results would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appeal was dismissed.

At a preliminary hearing, the accused was charged with multiple firearm-related offences, including unauthorized possession of a handgun, possession of a prohibited firearm, possession of a prohibited magazine and ammunition, and breach of recognizance, arising from the discovery of a loaded handgun under a mattress in a motel room.

The Crown sought to establish that the accused possessed the firearm based on circumstantial evidence including his presence in the room, his use of a key card to access it, and his nervous demeanor upon encountering police.

The preliminary hearing judge found insufficient evidence to establish the essential elements of possession, specifically knowledge and control over the firearm, and discharged the accused on all counts.

The accused was charged with failing to provide an approved screening device (ASD) sample contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

After being stopped for a traffic investigation, the accused was asked to provide a breath sample into an ASD but failed to do so despite 26 attempts.

The accused challenged the admissibility of evidence of his refusal on the grounds that his Charter rights to counsel (section 10(b)) and protection against arbitrary detention (section 9) were violated.

The court found that the accused was not handcuffed prior to arrest and that evidence of his refusal to provide a sample, as opposed to evidence obtained from compelled participation, was admissible.

The accused was convicted.

The Offender, A.H., was found guilty of child luring over the internet, contrary to section 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada, involving a 15-year-old victim.

The offence included sending offensive material and invitations for sexual acts.

A.H. had no prior criminal record but denied the offence and expressed no remorse.

The Crown sought a sentence of 15 months imprisonment and probation, emphasizing deterrence and denunciation as primary sentencing principles.

The court considered the statutory minimum sentence of one year and the revised sentencing range for child luring, noting the upward adjustment from previous case law (Jarvis) as clarified by Woodward.

The judge imposed a sentence of 15 months imprisonment and one year probation, along with ancillary orders including a DNA sample, 20 years on the Sex Offender Registry, and a 10-year prohibition from certain locations and contact with persons under 16.

A young person (C.L.), age 14 at the time of the alleged offences, was charged with sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault against a younger complainant (J.P.), age 9 at the time.

The complainant alleged that C.L. forced him to perform oral sex on multiple occasions between November and December 2014.

The defence denied all allegations.

The case turned primarily on credibility assessment.

The court found that while the complainant was an impressive witness for his age, significant discrepancies existed regarding how the allegations were initially disclosed.

The court concluded that the Crown had not proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all counts.

A young person charged with sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault applied under section 276 of the Criminal Code to adduce evidence of prior sexual activity by the complainant.

The applicant sought to cross-examine the complainant about an alleged incident from summer 2013 to challenge the complainant's credibility regarding a prior inconsistent statement made to police.

The court granted the application, finding that the evidence met the requirements of section 276(2): it was a specific instance of sexual activity, relevant to the credibility issue at trial, and had significant probative value that was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

The Crown applied for permission to allow a certified support dog to attend court beside the complainant during her testimony at a preliminary inquiry into allegations of historical sexual assault.

The court granted the application, finding that while the dog did not qualify as a "support person" under Section 486.1 of the Criminal Code, the Canadian Victims' Bill of Rights provided jurisdiction to allow the dog as a testimonial aid.

The court was satisfied that the dog's presence would not interfere with the proceedings or the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

The accused was charged with luring a child and exposing genitals for a sexual purpose.

The Crown alleged the accused sent explicit pictures and messages to the complainant, who was under 16, via Facebook.

The court found the accused guilty of luring a child, based on circumstantial evidence including the use of his known nickname and email, and post-offence conduct indicating an attempt to destroy evidence.

However, the court found the accused not guilty of exposing genitals, as the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the penis in the pictures was that of the accused.

The offender was found guilty of criminal harassment following the end of an extra-marital affair with the victim.

He sent unwanted text messages, including a threat to go 'Rambo' on her, and left a disturbing voicemail.

The Crown sought 30-45 days in custody, while the defence requested a conditional discharge.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence but noted the offender's lack of a prior record and positive presentence report.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 18 months of probation, declining a conditional discharge due to the threatening nature of the communications.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and criminal harassment following a brief sexual relationship with the complainant.

The complainant alleged that the accused forced her to engage in non-consensual anal intercourse in his truck, and subsequently sent her numerous unwanted and threatening text messages.

The court acquitted the accused of sexual assault, finding that the conflicting evidence on consent left a reasonable doubt.

However, the court convicted the accused of criminal harassment, concluding that his repeated, unwanted communications caused the complainant to reasonably fear for her safety.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and breach of probation.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on eyewitness testimony that the accused was positioned on top of an unconscious woman in a park, DNA evidence showing the complainant's DNA on the accused's penis, and statements allegedly made by the accused.

The accused testified that his contact with the complainant was innocent and that her DNA came to be on his penis through a prank involving a tissue.

The court found the accused guilty, determining that the eyewitness evidence, the accused's incriminating statements, and the DNA evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had intercourse with the unconscious complainant.

Following a jury trial, the offender was convicted of sexual assault, common assault, and uttering a death threat against an intimate partner.

The offences involved forced vaginal intercourse accompanied by violence, physical assault during a dispute, and a later threat to kill the complainant.

The court considered aggravating factors including the violent nature of the sexual assault, the intimate relationship context, the victim’s vulnerability due to serious illness, and prior foreign convictions for sexual offences entered on a plea of nolo contendere.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court imposed a penitentiary sentence.

A total sentence of four years’ imprisonment was ordered along with ancillary orders including DNA collection, a weapons prohibition, and registration under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act.

The accused was tried on charges of assault with a weapon, uttering threats to cause death, sexual assault, sexual interference with a person under 16, and breach of probation.

The allegations arose from two incidents involving a teenage complainant and her mother, including unwanted sexual touching of the minor in a stairwell and later threats with a sharp metal object during an argument.

The defence argued the complainants were not credible due to inconsistencies, alleged motives to fabricate, and post‑offence conduct.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the complainants credible and the discrepancies minor and explainable given the age of the young complainant and passage of time.

The accused was found guilty of assault with a weapon, uttering threats, sexual assault, sexual interference, and breach of probation, with a stay entered on the sexual assault count under the Kienapple principle.