G. Christakos

The accused was arrested for impaired driving causing bodily harm (later upgraded to causing death) following a motor vehicle collision.

While detained in police cells, she was subjected to video surveillance, including while using the toilet.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging a breach of her s. 8 rights, arguing she should have been automatically provided a privacy gown rather than merely offered one.

The court dismissed the application, finding no s. 8 breach because the police took reasonable steps to protect her privacy by repeatedly advising her of the video surveillance, pointing out signage, and offering her a privacy gown, which she declined.

The accused was charged with break and enter, assault, arson, uttering threats, and damage to property following a home invasion.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the perpetrator.

The Crown relied on the eyewitness identification of the two complainants and a corroborating witness.

The court found the identification evidence to be unreliable due to the fleeting nature of the observations, the stressful circumstances, the influence of marijuana, and the fact that the witnesses had collaborated on a collective narrative before speaking to police.

The court was left with a reasonable doubt as to identity and acquitted the accused on all counts.