3 total
Charter motion to exclude cell phone evidence dismissed; warrant upheld based on common-sense inferences of use.
The applicant, charged with aggravated assault, brought a Charter motion under ss. 8 and 24(2) to exclude evidence obtained from a search of his iPhone.
He argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked direct evidence that he used the phone during or after the incident, rendering the warrant facially invalid.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the issuing justice was entitled to draw a common-sense inference that the applicant likely used his phone to generate relevant data during the hours surrounding the violent events.
The search warrant was upheld as lawful and valid.
The offender was sentenced to 20 months' custody for two knifepoint robberies, with no additional mitigation for presentence conditions.
Timothy Bolton was sentenced for two counts of robbery.
The first involved the knifepoint theft of a phone from an elderly man with a walker.
The second, committed while on bail, involved stabbing a woman in the face with a knife, followed by a chokehold and demand for money.
The Crown sought a 20-month custodial sentence, while the defence argued for 14 months, further mitigated to 10.5 months due to allegedly harsh presentence custody conditions.
The court found the victims to be vulnerable, and the use of the knife, planning, and re-offending while on bail were aggravating factors.
While acknowledging mitigating factors such as guilty pleas and a 13-year gap in the record, the court dismissed the claim for additional mitigation based on custody conditions, finding them not "particularly harsh." The court expressed concern about the offender's perceived lack of insight into his fentanyl addiction and his post-release plans.
A sentence of 20 months' custody was imposed, along with three years of probation, a DNA order, restitution, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.
Complainant permitted to testify via CCTV with a support person due to severe anxiety.
The Crown applied for orders under ss. 486.2(2) and 486.1(2) of the Criminal Code to allow the complainant to testify via CCTV and with a support person present.
The complainant, who was 15-16 years old at the time of the alleged sexual offences, suffered severe anxiety and physical illness during a previous court attendance when denied a screen.
The court granted the application, finding that the testimonial aids would facilitate a full and candid account and were in the interest of the proper administration of justice.
The court also noted the defence's opposition was frivolous and caused unreasonable delay.
