Glen Orr

During a jury trial for illegal possession of a handgun, the defence sought to introduce text messages to impeach the credibility of a key Crown witness, Veronica Sinclair.

The defence alleged Sinclair had animus towards the accused's family due to her disapproval of a romantic relationship between her daughter and the accused's sister.

Sinclair denied this during cross-examination.

The court ruled the text messages inadmissible, finding them to be collateral evidence and noting the defence's failure to confront the witness with the messages during cross-examination, as well as a lack of due diligence in their late presentation.

The defendants, Frank Lee and Jason Cooney, brought a Charter application to exclude two kilograms of crystal methamphetamine found in their car, arguing violations of their s. 9 (unreasonable arrest) and s. 10(b) (right to counsel) Charter rights.

The court found that the police had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, thus no s. 9 violation.

However, it found s. 10(b) violations for both defendants due to delays in advising and facilitating access to counsel.

Applying the s. 24(2) Grant test, the court determined that the seriousness of the police misconduct (carelessness, not systemic) and the impact on the accused's Charter interests (no evidence flowed from the breach) were outweighed by society's strong interest in adjudicating the case on its merits, given the reliable and significant evidence.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with possession of a loaded handgun, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence and stay proceedings, alleging breaches of ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(b), and 12.

The court found the arrest and subsequent search of the vehicle were lawful based on a reliable 911 call.

While the court found a minor breach of the implementational aspect of s. 10(b) due to a 17-minute delay in contacting duty counsel, it declined to exclude the firearm or the applicant's spontaneous utterances under s. 24(2), concluding the breach was technical and did not warrant exclusion.

The defendant was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with dangerous driving.

The Crown withdrew the "over 80" charge during trial.

The defendant admitted to being the driver at the scene but later claimed his friend, the vehicle owner, was actually driving.

The court found the defendant guilty of both impaired driving and dangerous driving based on eyewitness testimony, the defendant's own admission to police, and the implausibility of the defence evidence.

The court rejected the defence narrative that the defendant was lying in the back seat and that the vehicle owner was the actual driver.

Joe Ramono, charged with criminal negligence causing death and forged documents, applied to have evidence from searches of his business, Pro Street Auto, ruled inadmissible.

He alleged violations of his Charter right against unreasonable search or seizure, arguing that police failed to make full disclosure in the Information to Obtain (ITO) for the search warrants and that the searches exceeded the warrants' scope.

The court found no evidence of police deception or subversive conduct and determined that the ITO provided reasonable grounds for the warrants.

The court also found that the searches did not exceed the scope of the warrants and that the participation of an MTO officer was lawful.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with criminal negligence causing death, moved to sever his trial from a co-accused.

The applicant argued that the accused were not jointly charged, did not act in concert, had different conduct, and that severance was necessary for him to call the co-accused as a witness to elicit exculpatory evidence regarding the co-accused's drinking and driving history.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the offences arose from the same series of events, the nexus between the accused was sufficient for a joint trial, and the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility that the co-accused would testify or that such testimony would be favourable.

The court also noted the "cut-throat defence" element, which weighs against severance.

The applicant sought exclusion of evidence discovered after police entered a residence without a warrant and arrested him in connection with drug production and trafficking offences.

The issue was whether the applicant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the dwelling sufficient to challenge the search under s. 8 of the Charter.

Applying the factors from Edwards and related authorities, the court examined the applicant’s connection to the premises.

The evidence established only that the applicant was present in the house and had left a bag of personal effects there.

The court concluded there was no evidence of ownership, control, historical use, or a subjective expectation of privacy, and therefore the applicant lacked standing to challenge the search.

A judicial interim release hearing for two accused charged with robbery while armed with a firearm, forcible confinement, possession of prohibited weapons, and possession of property obtained by crime, as well as possession of opium poppy including heroin.

The Crown opposed release on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found that both accused had reversed onus due to prior weapons convictions and current bail conditions.

Despite proposed sureties and electronic monitoring, the court determined the release plans were insufficient given the serious nature of the charges, the apparent strength of the Crown's case based on recent possession doctrine, and the extensive criminal histories of both accused.

Both accused were detained.