G.P. Renwick

The defendant, charged with possessing child pornography, brought pre-trial Charter applications to quash a search warrant and exclude evidence.

He argued the warrant lacked sufficient grounds and that his rights under ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter were violated when police obtained his cell phone password during the search.

The court found the search warrant was validly issued based on reasonable grounds.

The court also held the defendant was not psychologically detained during the search and had provided valid informed consent to unlock his phone.

The applications were dismissed.

The appellant appealed his Provincial Offences Act conviction for speeding, arguing he was denied a fair trial, lacked full disclosure, faced prosecutorial threats, and suffered a section 11(b) Charter delay.

The Ontario Court of Justice reviewed the trial transcripts and found no evidence supporting the claims of unfairness or lack of disclosure.

The court also dismissed the Charter claim due to an insufficient evidentiary record.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown brought an application to admit similar fact evidence across two counts of sexual assault alleged by two separate complainants against a massage therapist.

The accused opposed the application, arguing that the second complainant's evidence was unintentionally tainted by media reports of the first complaint, and that the accounts were too dissimilar.

The court found no evidence of actual or unintentional collusion.

Applying the test for similar fact evidence, the court held that the two accounts shared significant similarities, including the specific nature of the inappropriate touching during the massages.

The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence in assessing credibility and rebutting defences outweighed any potential prejudice, and granted the application.

The Ontario Provincial Police applied for a production order under s. 487.014 of the Criminal Code in relation to a fraud investigation known as Project Gundy.

The investigation concerned syndicated mortgage investments where multiple development projects were never completed and investors were allegedly misled about conflicts of interest, the use of their funds, and the priority of their claims.

The court found that the statutory prerequisites were met and that it was in the best interests of the administration of justice to issue the order to assist investigators in determining whether unlawful business practices occurred.

The application was granted.

The young person, charged with three bank robberies using an imitation firearm and multiple breaches of prior release orders, sought judicial interim release.

The Crown opposed bail on the secondary and tertiary grounds under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court found that the young person posed a substantial risk to public safety and that his detention was necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, given the strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offences, and the young person's history of ungovernability.

The proposed release plan involving his parents as sureties was deemed inadequate.

Bail was denied and the young person was ordered detained until trial.

The youth defendant was charged with four counts arising from a stabbing incident in a school parking lot, where an adult co-accused stabbed the complainant.

The Crown alleged the defendant was a party to the offences under s. 21 of the Criminal Code.

The court found significant credibility issues with the Crown witnesses and noted a lack of corroborating forensic evidence.

The court concluded the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant on all counts.