E. Taylor

The applicant, one of four individuals charged with first-degree murder, brought applications to sever his trial from his co-accused or, alternatively, to admit a co-accused's post-arrest statement as hearsay.

The applicant, alleged to be the second getaway driver, sought to rely on the co-accused's statement that he was highly intoxicated on the morning of the murder to support defences of lack of intent and abandonment.

The court dismissed the severance application, finding the proposed evidence was largely inadmissible self-serving hearsay and lacked proximity to the offence.

The court also dismissed the hearsay application, concluding the co-accused was a highly unreliable source, the statement contained double hearsay, lacked corroboration, and its admission would be highly prejudicial to the other co-accused.

During a first-degree murder trial, the accused brought a motion to exclude evidence of a GPS tracking device found on the deceased's vehicle.

The accused argued there was insufficient evidence connecting them to the device.

The court found sufficient circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the device, including the presence of the tracking app on cellphones found near two of the accused upon arrest.

The court admitted the GPS data from the Greater Toronto Area but excluded data from Montreal, finding the latter had low probative value and was potentially prejudicial.

The Crown applied to quash a subpoena issued by the respondent to an assistant Crown attorney.

The respondent, who was facing murder charges, sought to compel the prosecutor to testify at a hearing regarding alleged prosecutorial misconduct, after a witness claimed the prosecutor had coached him to change his evidence.

The court granted the application to quash the subpoena, finding that the respondent failed to meet the stringent test of demonstrating that the prosecutor's evidence was necessary, as another police officer was present during the relevant meetings and could testify to the events.

Prior to a first-degree murder trial, the defence brought an application to permit the in-custody accused to sit at counsel table rather than in the prisoner's box.

The Crown opposed the application, citing institutional incident reports demonstrating the accused's history of violence and non-compliance while in custody.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the incident reports established a significant risk to courtroom security.

The court also noted that security concerns were heightened due to anticipated hostility between the accused and certain Crown witnesses.

During a murder trial, the Crown brought a KGB application to admit prior inconsistent statements made by a recanting witness to a police agent in a courthouse holding cell.

The witness had previously been granted leave to be cross-examined under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act.

The court applied the principled approach to hearsay to assess threshold reliability.

The court admitted the first part of the statements, finding sufficient procedural and substantive reliability as the witness confirmed making them and was available for cross-examination.

The second part of the statements was excluded due to poor audio quality and incomplete utterances, which undermined the jury's ability to assess their truth and accuracy.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, brought pre-trial applications to exclude audio files found on his Blackberry cell phone.

The files contained rap lyrics referencing a firearm of the same calibre as the murder weapon.

The accused argued that the seizure of the phone, the search warrant, and the delayed report to a justice violated his s. 8 Charter rights.

The court found no Charter breach in the initial seizure or the type of warrant used.

Although the Crown conceded a breach regarding the delayed report to a justice, the court declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court also upheld the validity of the search warrant and found the probative value of the rap lyrics outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant, charged with three counts of first-degree murder relating to the deaths of her former spouse and his parents, applied for judicial interim release.

The Crown opposed the application on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds.

The court found the Crown had a strong circumstantial case and that the proposed plan of supervision, which included electronic monitoring, was insufficient to mitigate the risks of flight and interference with the administration of justice.

The court also concluded that the applicant's release would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The bail application was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with three counts of first degree murder relating to her former husband and his parents, applied for judicial interim release.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing the applicant posed a flight risk, a threat to the administration of justice, and that her release would undermine public confidence.

The court reviewed the strong circumstantial case against the applicant, her history of breaching court orders, and the proposed plan of supervision involving electronic monitoring.

The court concluded that the applicant failed to show cause for release on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, and dismissed the bail application.

The accused applied for a bail review seeking release pending trial on several fraud-related charges.

The Crown opposed release on the secondary ground under s. 515 of the Criminal Code, arguing there was a substantial likelihood the accused would commit further offences if released.

The court considered the proposed release plan involving multiple sureties, including the accused’s elderly father as primary surety.

The judge found the father unsuitable due to age, inability to effectively supervise, and the accused’s past exploitation of his parents, including causing them to lose their home.

Given the accused’s significant fraud record and the inadequacy of the proposed supervision plan, the Crown established a substantial likelihood of reoffending.