Frank Bernhardt

The accused was charged with aggravated assault after stabbing the victim with a knife during an altercation at a mutual romantic partner's apartment.

The sole issue at trial was whether the accused acted in self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding she advanced on the unarmed victim and stabbed her out of anger when she was not in any danger and could have easily left the apartment.

The Crown successfully negatived all three branches of self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in a finding of guilt.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittals on charges of sexual assault and voyeurism, arguing the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, relied on inadmissible video evidence, and misinterpreted the voyeurism provisions of the Criminal Code.

The summary conviction appeal court found no reversible errors, noting the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence and the video exhibit was admitted without limiting instructions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown brought an application under s. 24(2) of the Charter seeking admission of a firearm and ammunition previously excluded after a finding that a search warrant was invalid and the search unconstitutional under s. 8.

Applying the three-part test from R. v. Grant, the court assessed the seriousness of the Charter-infringing state conduct, the impact of the breach on the accused’s privacy interests in his home, and society’s interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.

Although the intrusion into a private dwelling was significant, the police acted in good faith pursuant to a judicially authorized warrant and did not deliberately or recklessly disregard Charter rights.

Given the reliability and central importance of the firearm evidence and the seriousness of the firearms offences, the balance favoured admission of the evidence.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction acquittal on a charge of dangerous driving arising from a high-speed police stop on the Don Valley Parkway.

The trial judge had found that audio and video recordings from a police in-car camera contradicted key aspects of the arresting officer’s testimony regarding aggressive driving and road conditions, leading to concerns about the reliability of the officers’ evidence.

The trial judge concluded that the evidence did not establish a marked departure from the standard of care required for dangerous driving and that the Crown had not proven the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

On appeal, the Crown argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence by comparing testimony with recordings that did not capture the entire driving sequence.

The appeal court held that the trial judge understood the limited scope of the recording and committed no palpable and overriding error in assessing credibility and reliability.

Deference to the trial judge’s factual findings required dismissal of the appeal.