Geoff Snow

The court considered pre-trial applications by Althea Christopher and Tianna Smith to exclude evidence in a prosecution for unauthorized possession of a prohibited firearm while occupying a motor vehicle.

The applications were based on alleged breaches of Charter rights, including unreasonable search and seizure, and failures to comply with statutory reporting requirements.

The court found that the warrantless search of the vehicle's interior, which led to the discovery of a spent bullet casing, violated section 8 of the Charter.

The evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, and the Crown subsequently withdrew the charges, ending the proceeding.

The Crown sought to admit the defendant's video and audio-recorded statement as voluntary.

The defendant brought a cross-application alleging a breach of his s. 10(a) Charter rights, seeking exclusion of the statement.

The court found the statement voluntary but concluded that the defendant's s. 10(b) Charter rights were infringed because he was not given a full opportunity to engage with counsel after it became apparent he was confused about the extent of his jeopardy.

Applying the Grant factors, the court excluded the statement, finding the breach significant and not critical to the Crown's case.

The accused, A.A., brought an application for a stay of criminal charges under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time, citing the R. v. Jordan framework.

The total delay from arrest to anticipated trial end was 28.8 months, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial courts.

The court analyzed periods of delay attributable to the defence's inefficiency and indifference (12.5 months) and recognized the COVID-19 pandemic as an exceptional circumstance not attributable to the Crown.

Deducting defence delay, the net delay was 16.3 months, which, even with a margin of error, was deemed permissible considering the pandemic's impact.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The accused, Jeremiah Andre Reed, was charged with attempted murder (stabbing Grant Douglas) and breach of a probation order (possessing a weapon).

The Crown's case relied primarily on the complainant's testimony, which the court found credible and reliable despite minor inconsistencies and a criminal record, due to strong corroborating evidence and the complainant's direct involvement in the events.

The court found the identification of the accused to be highly reliable given the complainant's prior acquaintance with him and the circumstances of the attack and subsequent pursuit.

Direct evidence of the accused's intent to kill was found in his own words.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The applicant, charged with sexual interference and sexual assault, brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging a violation of his right to a trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay was calculated at 48 months.

The court deducted 19 months and 21 days of defence delay, primarily attributed to a late adjournment caused by defence counsel's failure to notice a potential s. 276 issue in the disclosure.

The resulting net delay of 28 months and 9 days fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

Furthermore, the court found that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a discrete exceptional event that justified the remaining delay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, facing trial for sexual assault, brought a pre-trial motion seeking to exercise peremptory challenges during jury selection, despite their repeal by Bill C-75.

The applicant argued that a previous Superior Court decision declaring the repeal unconstitutional was binding, or alternatively, that the repeal operated prospectively.

The court dismissed the application, finding that coordinate court decisions are not binding, the previous decision was plainly wrong, and the procedural amendments operate retrospectively.

The new jury selection provisions apply to the applicant's trial.

The defendant sought a bail review after being denied bail by a Justice of the Peace.

He was charged with robbery, disguise with intent, dangerous driving, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and failing to comply with release conditions.

The defendant proposed a new release plan including his mother as surety for a higher amount, residing at her home, GPS monitoring, and drug counselling.

The court found that the new evidence, including GPS monitoring, constituted a material relevant change in circumstances, triggering a review.

However, the court ultimately found that the defendant failed to discharge the reverse onus on both secondary and tertiary grounds, given his serious criminal record, long-standing drug addiction, past breaches, and the escalating nature of his criminal activity.

The application for bail review was dismissed.

Johan Thiessen was convicted by a jury of two counts of possession of cocaine and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and parity, noting the serious nature and high value of the drugs involved.

Despite the accused's lack of criminal record and strong community support, his role as a facilitator by allowing his home to be used as a "stash house" demonstrated reckless disregard.

Balancing these factors against the 6-year sentences received by the main orchestrators of the trafficking scheme, the court imposed a sentence of 4.5 years incarceration, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

During a criminal trial for manslaughter and aggravated assault, the Crown sought to call an expert witness in reply to the defence's expert on bloodstain analysis.

The defence opposed this, arguing it was not proper reply evidence and would cause trial unfairness if allowed as part of the Crown's case due to late disclosure.

The court ruled that the Crown could not call the expert in reply, as the evidence was foreseeable and based on existing facts.

However, the court permitted the Crown to call the expert as part of its case, provided the defence was given a brief adjournment to prepare for cross-examination and consult with their own expert, and with the option to recall previous witnesses.

The applicant was convicted of possessing methamphetamine, hydromorphone, and cannabis marijuana while an inmate at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Center.

The central issue concerned missing video surveillance recordings of common areas within the facility.

The applicant brought a Charter application alleging a violation of section 7 rights based on an unreasonable pre-charge delay and the loss of evidence.

The court found that the applicant's section 7 Charter rights were violated due to the negligent investigative approach and failure to preserve evidence, but declined to grant a stay of proceedings, instead imposing a significant sentence reduction as an alternative remedy.

Media organizations sought certiorari to quash a provincial court judge’s order imposing a partial publication ban and denying access to a video exhibit tendered during a guilty plea for obstruction of justice arising from a detention-centre death.

The applicants argued that the provincial court judge lacked jurisdiction and that the order failed the Dagenais/Mentuck test.

The Superior Court held that the judge presiding over the guilty plea had jurisdiction to consider and grant a publication ban related to the proceeding before him.

The court found that the partial ban appropriately balanced open court principles with the fair trial rights of co‑accused facing related charges.

The court concluded that the order was necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk to the proper administration of justice and that no error of law appeared on the face of the record.

The court considered an application for a publication ban following the guilty plea of David Cake to obstructing justice.

The applicant Anthony George, charged separately in connection with the same incident, sought a complete publication ban to protect his right to a fair trial.

The Crown supported a limited ban, while media intervenors opposed any restrictions.

The court granted a partial, temporary publication ban, permitting publication of certain facts regarding Cake's plea and conduct while restricting publication of evidence concerning the cause of death and any references to George or co-accused Mielke.

The court considered the Dagenais test, the importance of open court principles, and systemic discrimination affecting aboriginal accused persons.

The applicants, charged with drug offences following a warrantless search of their residence, brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging breaches of their s. 7, s. 8, and s. 11(b) Charter rights.

The s. 7 claim arose from the principal police witness failing to disclose that his personal counsel was also representing one of the applicants at the preliminary inquiry.

The court found a s. 7 breach but held it did not warrant a stay of proceedings.

However, the court found that the applicants' s. 11(b) rights were violated due to an unreasonable delay of 28 months, largely stemming from the conflict of interest issue and institutional delay.

The court granted a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter.