Gregory Barker

The accused was charged with multiple counts of breaching probation and prohibition orders, as well as four counts of luring under section 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the accused engaged in sexually explicit communications with two fifteen-year-old girls via Facebook, with the purpose of facilitating sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching.

The accused claimed his communications were intended solely for friendship and self-gratification fantasy.

The court found the accused guilty of all charges, holding that the Crown need not prove an intention to ultimately commit the secondary offence, only that the communications were intended to facilitate or make easier the commission of such offences.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of breach of probation orders prohibiting internet access and communication with minors, and with luring a person under 16 years old.

The accused brought a Charter section 8 application to exclude evidence obtained from a seized smartphone on the grounds of unreasonable search and seizure.

The court considered four alleged breaches: observation of a password gesture in public, seizure and search of cellular phones from the residence without a specific warrant, the particularity of the warrant for the target smartphone, and whether the search was overly broad.

The court found one breach regarding the warrantless search of cellular phones seized from the residence but declined to exclude the evidence from the target smartphone under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle, care or control with excess blood alcohol, and breach of a probation order.

The narrow issue was whether the accused was in care or control of his mother's vehicle on February 26, 2012.

The accused admitted to impairment and the blood alcohol concentration but disputed whether he operated the vehicle.

The Crown alleged the accused drove the vehicle into the driveway; the accused claimed he only sat in the driver's seat and attempted to rock the vehicle free from snow using his foot.

The court found the accused guilty, determining that his occupation of the driver's seat with the intention to set the vehicle in motion, even by foot power, constituted care or control under section 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.