G. Mulligan

Following his conviction for child luring, the applicant brought an entrapment application seeking a stay of proceedings.

The conviction arose from a police sting operation targeting individuals seeking juvenile prostitutes on an online classifieds website.

The court found that the police had a reasonable suspicion to investigate the virtual space and that the undercover officer introduced the poster's underage status early in the conversation, distinguishing the case from others where entrapment was found.

The application was dismissed.

Following a successful motion interpreting a price adjustment clause in a land development agreement, the applicant sought the return of disputed funds held in trust by the respondents' solicitor, along with interest.

The court determined the appropriate interest rates for both the undisputed mortgage amounts paid late by the applicant and the disputed funds held in trust by the respondents.

The court awarded 4% simple interest to the respondents on the late undisputed payments and 4% simple interest to the applicant on the disputed funds held in trust, allowing the respondents to retain the GIC interest earned.

In a first degree murder prosecution, the Crown sought to admit numerous ante‑mortem statements made by the deceased to friends and family describing the accused’s conduct and the deteriorating relationship between them.

The court reviewed the admissibility of hearsay evidence under the traditional “state of mind” exception and the principled hearsay exception requiring necessity and threshold reliability.

While acknowledging the risk of moral and reasoning prejudice associated with prior discreditable conduct and repetitive hearsay, the court held that most statements were relevant to motive, animus, planning and deliberation, and the criminal harassment component of constructive first degree murder.

The court excluded certain statements lacking sufficient reliability or probative value but admitted the majority of the evidence as part of the unfolding narrative of the relationship.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, brought a pre‑trial motion seeking to introduce third party suspect evidence suggesting another individual may have committed the homicide.

The defence argued that the third party had the opportunity to commit the offence and had connections with individuals associated with the deceased.

The Crown opposed the motion, submitting the proposed theory was speculative and unsupported by evidence linking the third party to the crime.

Applying the principles governing third party suspect evidence, including the requirement of a sufficient evidentiary nexus, the court held that the proposed theory lacked an air of reality and would invite speculation.

The prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct involving two former spouses in a first-degree murder trial.

The proposed evidence included allegations of jealousy, controlling behaviour, criminal harassment, and assault.

The Crown argued this similar fact evidence would assist in proving motive, identity, and the elements of first-degree murder.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Handy and concluded that the prejudicial effect of the evidence, particularly moral and reasoning prejudice, outweighed its probative value.

The Crown's application to admit the evidence was dismissed.

The accused, who is HIV-positive with an undetectable viral load, was charged with three counts of aggravated sexual assault for failing to disclose her status to three different complainants before engaging in sexual activity.

For the count involving oral sex, the court found no realistic possibility of transmission and acquitted the accused.

For the count involving unprotected vaginal intercourse, the court found a realistic possibility of transmission existed despite the undetectable viral load, vitiating consent, and found the accused guilty.

For the final count, the court acquitted the accused because the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a condom was not used, given the complainant's credibility issues.