Hill

The accused were charged with production of marihuana, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and theft of electricity after arriving at a residence containing a grow operation.

The police arrested them immediately upon their arrival without reasonable grounds, and failed to properly communicate their Charter rights due to language barriers.

The court found multiple breaches of the accused's ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) Charter rights and excluded the evidence obtained, including a house key and a garage door opener, under s. 24(2).

Even if the evidence were admitted, the court found the circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove knowledge and control beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused were found not guilty.

The appellant, a high school math teacher, appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual exploitation of a 16-year-old student.

He argued the trial judge erred by treating a cross-examination question as evidence, failing to address improbabilities in the complainant's evidence, and attaching no weight to his good character evidence.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding that any error regarding the cross-examination question was harmless, the trial judge's credibility assessments were reasonable and supported by the evidence, and the trial judge did not err in her treatment of the character evidence given the private nature of the offences.

The accused was charged with robbery, having his face masked with intent to commit robbery, and use of an imitation firearm while committing robbery.

The Crown's case relied on the testimony of an accomplice and a videotaped confession by the accused.

The accused testified that he was high on marijuana, unaware of the robbery plan, and falsely confessed due to police threats.

The court rejected the accused's testimony, found the accomplice's evidence corroborated by the confession and physical evidence, and found the accused guilty on all charges.

The accused was arrested for an armed carjacking after police intercepted the stolen vehicle.

During the arrest, an officer grounded the accused, causing a minor cut to his chin, to secure a replica handgun tucked in his waistband.

The accused subsequently gave a videotaped statement to police.

On a confessional voir dire, the defence argued the statement was involuntary due to oppressive police conduct, specifically the use of force during the arrest.

The court found the officer's use of force was reasonable and necessary given the dynamic and high-risk situation of an armed suspect.

The court concluded the accused's will was not overborne, and the statement was voluntary and admissible.

The Crown appealed the sentences imposed on two repeat drinking and driving offenders.

In both cases, the trial judges had set aside the Crown's s. 727(1) notices of intention to seek an increased penalty, finding that the prosecutors had exercised their discretion unreasonably.

One of the offenders also appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in proceeding with the trial in his absence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in proceeding where counsel was present and prepared.

The Court allowed the Crown's sentence appeals, holding that the decision to file a s. 727(1) notice falls within the core elements of prosecutorial discretion and is reviewable only for abuse of process, not on a standard of reasonableness.

However, at the Crown's request, the existing sentences were not varied.

The accused was arrested at Pearson International Airport after returning from Panama when customs officers discovered approximately two pounds of cocaine hidden in four health care product bottles in her checked luggage.

The accused claimed she was an innocent courier who had been tricked by her travelling companion into carrying the bottles.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as implausible and inconsistent, finding that her demeanour and actions at the airport, including attempting to abandon her suitcase and hiding baggage tags in her bra, demonstrated guilty knowledge.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly imported the cocaine and found her guilty.