G. Snow

The Crown brought an application under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code seeking an order to allow the complainant to testify at trial by closed-circuit television (CCTV).

The accused opposed the application.

The court considered the factors under s. 486.2(3) and found that the complainant, a mature and articulate adult without disabilities, was capable of providing a full and candid account of the allegations in open court.

The court noted that the complainant had previously participated in family court proceedings with the accused in the same courtroom without incident.

The application was dismissed, with the court noting that pauses or breaks would be available to the complainant if needed during her testimony.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought an application seeking a declaration that text messages between himself and the complainant were not 'records' under section 278.1 of the Criminal Code.

The messages primarily involved the complainant asking the accused for money to purchase a property and expressing frustration.

Applying the framework from R. v. J.J., the court found that the messages did not contain highly sensitive personal information going to the complainant's biographical core.

The application was granted, and the court declared the text messages were not records.

The applicants, charged with drug and firearms offences, brought a Charter application challenging the validity of several search warrants and production orders that stemmed from a homicide investigation.

At a preliminary stage, they sought leave to cross-examine the affiants and investigating officers, arguing that the police intentionally misled the authorizing justice by elevating one applicant to a 'suspect' without new evidence to secure a wiretap authorization.

The court granted leave to cross-examine three officers regarding the change in the applicant's suspect status, finding it could assist in determining whether police conduct subverted the preauthorization process, but denied leave to cross-examine a fourth officer whose warrants were subject only to a facial validity review.

The applicants, charged with possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

The anticipated trial date was 45 months after the charges were laid, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The court deducted periods of defence delay, including communal delay for counsel unavailability, and exceptional circumstances delay arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, an unavailable witness, and the assigned judge's illness.

After deductions, the net delay fell below the presumptive ceiling.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The accused was charged with break and enter, assault, arson, uttering threats, and damage to property following a home invasion.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the perpetrator.

The Crown relied on the eyewitness identification of the two complainants and a corroborating witness.

The court found the identification evidence to be unreliable due to the fleeting nature of the observations, the stressful circumstances, the influence of marijuana, and the fact that the witnesses had collaborated on a collective narrative before speaking to police.

The court was left with a reasonable doubt as to identity and acquitted the accused on all counts.

The offender pleaded guilty to publishing intimate images of his former partner without her consent, contrary to s. 162.1 of the Criminal Code.

He created a fake Facebook profile in her name and shared the images with her family, friends, and co-workers.

The Crown sought a 12-month custodial sentence, while the defence sought a 9-12 month conditional sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence but found that a conditional sentence would not endanger the community and would not disrupt the offender's rehabilitation.

The court imposed a 16-month conditional sentence, followed by 3 years of probation, along with a 20-year internet restriction order.