Martin Musters

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings based on alleged prosecutorial and police misconduct, arguing that the conduct breached his right to a fair trial under sections 7 and 24(1) of the Charter, or violated his right to make full answer and defence.

The court reviewed the legal principles for a stay of proceedings, including the two categories of abuse of process (trial fairness and residual category) and the three-part test from R. v. Babos.

The court found that while mistakes were made by the Crown and police regarding disclosure and a Zoom meeting incident, there was no deliberate misconduct.

The court concluded that the applicant's right to a fair trial was not infringed, nor was the integrity of the justice system undermined.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of accessing, possessing, and distributing child pornography after police obtained his subscriber information via a production order and subsequently searched his home.

On appeal, the appellant argued the production order was invalidly issued based on a standard of 'reasonable suspicion' rather than 'reasonable grounds to believe'.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the production order and subsequent search warrant violated the appellant's s. 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework, the Court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, allowed the appeal, and entered acquittals on all counts.

The accused, Adam Kramshoj, was charged with making available and possessing child pornography.

The matter proceeded as a blended s. 8 Charter motion and trial.

The court found multiple s. 8 Charter breaches by the authorities, including a "Branton error" in the search warrant, an unauthorized pre-Spencer request for ISP subscriber information, failure to file a timely report to justice, and unreasonable search conduct (seizure of a personal notebook and loss of evidence regarding a Rogers letter's location).

Applying the Grant test, the court concluded that the seriousness and multiplicity of the breaches, coupled with the impact on the accused's Charter rights and compromised defence, warranted the exclusion of all evidence.

Consequently, an acquittal was entered.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for allegedly breaching a software license agreement by using proprietary source code to develop a competing product.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 32.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for an order to inspect the defendants' computer systems.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it premature as traditional documentary discovery had not yet occurred, and noting that the proposed inspection was wide-ranging and highly intrusive.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the plaintiffs' right to bring a new motion after discovery.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for assault against his spouse.

Fresh evidence was admitted on appeal, including a forensic computer analysis showing that a key audio recording relied upon at trial had been altered and was not an original recording from the device as claimed.

Additional police occurrence report evidence contradicted the complainant’s claim that she reported an assault at the time police attended the residence.

The appellate court found the complainant had manipulated evidence and provided false testimony, undermining her credibility and the reliability of the trial verdict.

Given the absence of a reasonable prospect of conviction, the court quashed the conviction and entered an acquittal rather than ordering a new trial.

The moving party sought three forms of relief in a commercial dispute involving alleged misuse of confidential information: an interlocutory injunction preventing a shareholder from voting its 35% interest in a telecommunications company, an order authorizing forensic imaging and review of the defendants’ corporate servers and devices, and a finding of contempt for alleged breach of a prior consent order.

The court held that the requested voting injunction could not be granted because the moving party failed to provide the mandatory undertaking as to damages under Rule 40.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a favourable balance of convenience.

The requested imaging order was refused because there was no evidence that the responding party had failed to comply with its document production obligations or attempted to conceal or destroy electronic evidence.

The contempt motion also failed because the alleged acts—deleting personal browsing history and installing software capable of secure deletion—did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that relevant information had been intentionally destroyed in breach of the consent order.

The plaintiff moved for an interlocutory injunction and Anton Piller relief against former senior employees, related corporations, and an IT contractor alleged to have misappropriated confidential business information and usurped a corporate opportunity.

The court found a strong prima facie case of contractual breach, fiduciary breach, direct competition, and improper removal and retention of hard drives and server data containing confidential investor, marketing, and business-planning information.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald injunction test and the Celanese framework for Anton Piller orders, the court held that irreparable harm would result from the defendants' entry into a unique market using the plaintiff's confidential materials, and that there was a real possibility relevant electronic evidence would be destroyed.

The injunction and Anton Piller order were granted.

The Crown brought a pre‑trial application seeking admission of a photograph allegedly depicting a police officer assaulting a protester during the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto.

The image had been anonymously uploaded to a website and lacked metadata, raising concerns about provenance and possible manipulation.

Competing expert evidence addressed whether the photograph had been altered, but neither expert could confirm its authenticity or trace its origin.

Applying the established criteria for authenticating photographic evidence, the court held the Crown failed to establish fairness and absence of manipulation.

As a result, the photograph was not authenticated and was ruled inadmissible at trial.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion for an interlocutory injunction against the vendor of its IT business and several former employees who joined a newly established direct competitor.

The vendor had signed a non-competition and non-solicitation agreement upon the sale of the business.

The court found that the strong prima facie case standard applied to the restrictive covenant in the context of a sale of a business.

The court held that the non-competition clause was reasonable, except for a 10 km geographic extension which was severed using the blue-pencil doctrine.

The court granted the injunction against the vendor and the other defendants, finding they were impressed with fiduciary duties, and ordered the preservation and forensic review of electronic devices due to a strong prima facie case of misappropriation of confidential information.