Heather Rebecca Bracken

In a criminal trial concerning an accused’s hidden-camera recording of a child, the court addressed whether the video met the definition of child pornography under s. 163.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court found the Crown had not proven explicit sexual activity under s. 163.1(1)(a)(i), but held the dominant characteristic of the video was depiction of the child’s sexual organs or anal region for a sexual purpose under s. 163.1(1)(a)(ii).

Applying the objective, contextual framework from appellate jurisprudence, the court concluded the recording was likely to stimulate sexual interest in some viewers.

The accused was found guilty of making child pornography contrary to s. 163.1(2) for the impugned period, with sentencing submissions adjourned.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter in connection with the death of Adrian Richardson, who was shot during a home invasion and robbery on May 2, 2022.

The accused drove the perpetrators to and from the victim's residence, knowing that violence was a distinct possibility.

The court accepted a joint submission and imposed a sentence of four years imprisonment with enhanced pre-sentence custody credits, resulting in an effective sentence of 211 days, followed by 12 months probation, a lifetime firearms prohibition, and a victim fine surcharge.

The court sentenced Telique Ricketts for manslaughter with a firearm, following a guilty plea entered mid-trial for the killing of Adrian Richardson during a planned home invasion and robbery.

The decision reviews the facts, victim impact, aggravating and mitigating factors, and relevant case law, ultimately imposing a sentence of 11 years, reduced to 6 years and 146 days after credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court also imposed a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The accused, Stephan Parr and Amy Rose-Podnar, brought mid-trial applications to exclude certain evidence in their first-degree murder trial.

Ms. Rose-Podnar sought to exclude seven text messages exchanged with a co-accused, Kaveh Lozoomi-Gamroodi, after the murder.

Both accused jointly sought to exclude testimony regarding the timing and number of phone calls between themselves and Dennis Crupi, the owner of a vehicle linked to the murder scene, around the time Crupi was being interviewed by police.

The court granted both applications, finding that the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by its prejudicial effect, as its admission would invite impermissible speculation and inferences of bad character, potentially forcing the accused to testify to provide context.

This ruling addresses a question of law during a criminal trial for manslaughter, specifically whether the actions of one of the accused, Mr. Parr, constituted an attempted robbery or mere preparation.

The Crown argued for attempted robbery as a third route to manslaughter conviction.

The court, applying principles from R. v. Cline, R. v. Root, and R. v. Deutsch, found that Mr. Parr's actions, including covering his hand to avoid fingerprints and remaining with an accomplice in the building, were indicative of an attempted robbery, not mere preparation.

The ruling allows this theory to be included in the jury charge.

Stephan Parr brought a motion to exclude certain shoe print evidence from his upcoming jury trial for murder.

The evidence included a police photograph of a shoe impression ("Impression F5") found at the scene, a video/photo of wet shoe impressions allegedly made by Parr, and product evidence from Adidas regarding CF Lite Racer shoes.

The Crown sought to have the jury compare Impression F5 with a product drawing of the shoes to infer Parr's presence at the scene.

The court granted the defence application, excluding the evidence on the grounds that its prejudicial value outweighed its probative value.

The evidence was based on hearsay, lacked a proper foundation (no actual shoes seized, reliance on a product schematic), and the impression itself had poor clarity and discrepancies.

The court found that a lay jury would be unable to make meaningful conclusions from the evidence, and its introduction would distract the jury and lead to impermissible reasoning.

This endorsement addresses issues arising from a trial management conference in a criminal proceeding.

Key points included a discussion regarding the appointment of counsel for one accused, Stephen Richard Parr, who has a Legal Aid certificate but is seeking counsel on the LAO panel.

The court also directed the Crown to file its discreditable conduct application and ordered all counsel to file summaries of their intended pre-trial applications by March 29, 2024.

The judge expressed concern about the efficiency of virtual attendances and indicated a consideration for ordering future trial management conferences to be held in person.

The accused was charged with manslaughter following the death of a 17-year-old victim whose body was found in a park.

The victim died from hypothermia, blunt facial trauma, and ethanol intoxication.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance and DNA, to prove the accused assaulted the victim before leaving him in freezing temperatures.

The defence argued the police investigation was flawed and pointed to alternate suspects.

The court rejected the alternate suspect theories, finding the circumstantial evidence excluded any other reasonable alternative to the accused's guilt.

The court concluded the assault was a substantial contributing cause of death and found the accused guilty of manslaughter.

The applicant, charged with manslaughter, brought an application to exclude his clothing from evidence, arguing it was seized from his father's apartment during a warrantless search in violation of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The court found the applicant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his father's home based on his familial and cultural background.

The court held the search was unreasonable as there were no exigent circumstances and the father did not provide valid, informed consent.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2), emphasizing the seriousness of the police conduct in entering a dwelling without a warrant and the negative impact on the Indigenous community's trust in police.

The accused, charged with possessing child pornography, brought an application to exclude a videotaped statement given to police, alleging a breach of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel.

The accused argued he had invoked his right to counsel during the interview and the police failed to facilitate contact.

The court found that the accused's statements were ambiguous and did not amount to an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel.

Furthermore, the accused was not reasonably diligent in exercising his right.

The application was dismissed and the statement was ruled admissible.

The defendant, Juan Camilo Garcia Barbosa, was charged with aggravated assault and confinement following a physical altercation with the complainant.

The incident involved an argument over a cell phone, resulting in the complainant sustaining a mild spinal fracture.

The court assessed the complainant's credibility and reliability, noting significant inconsistencies in her testimony, including the omission of a choking allegation made to police and medical staff, and her post-incident contact with the defendant.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt due to these reliability concerns.