H. Saini

The offenders were found guilty by a jury of exercising control, direction, or influence over the movements of two complainants who provided sexual services, and of receiving a financial benefit from those activities.

The court found the offenders exploited the young, vulnerable complainants for profit, with Mr. Deidun providing drugs and transportation, and Ms. Bernard booking hotel rooms.

After considering the Tang/Miller factors, the parity principle, pre-sentence custody, and Downes credit for restrictive bail conditions, the court sentenced Mr. Deidun to a net term of 30 months less 10 days, and Ms. Bernard to a net term of 11 months and 15 days.

The accused, charged with assault and sexual assault, brought an application for the production of third-party records, specifically police occurrence reports and officers' notes relating to previous complaints made by the complainant.

Following an initial ruling, the court reviewed the officers' notes to determine appropriate redactions.

The court ordered the release of the notes to the accused, subject to redactions protecting the identity and privacy of third parties and removing references to a separate youth record.

The applicant, charged with robbery and firearms offences, brought an application to exclude fingerprint evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The police identified the applicant by matching a fingerprint left at the crime scene to fingerprints stored in the RCMP's AFIS database from when the applicant was a young person.

The court found that the statutory access period for the youth records had expired, and the RCMP unlawfully retained the fingerprints in violation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

This constituted a breach of the applicant's s. 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the RCMP's failure to destroy the records was a serious violation that circumvented Parliament's clear intent, and admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The fingerprint evidence was excluded.

The accused was found guilty of the attempted murder of his former wife, whom he stabbed multiple times, as well as assaults against her and their daughter, and breaching his bail conditions.

The court found the attack was unprovoked and involved a serious breach of trust, though it was not planned and deliberate.

The court held that section 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional, allowing for enhanced pre-sentence custody credit.

The accused was sentenced to a total of 11 years and 31 days, reduced to 7 years, 5 months, and 6 days on the main count after applying a 1.5:1 credit for pre-trial custody.

The Crown applied for a ruling that several statements made by the accused during police interrogation were voluntary and admissible.

The accused sought a stay of proceedings under the Charter, alleging violations of ss. 7, 8, and 9, including unlawful arrest, an unjustified strip search, and failure to bring him before a justice within 24 hours contrary to s. 503 of the Criminal Code.

The court held the arrest was supported by reasonable and probable grounds and the strip search was justified as incident to custody and conducted reasonably.

Although the police breached s. 503 and the accused’s s. 9 Charter rights by delaying his appearance before a justice, the court found no prejudice warranting a stay.

All statements were admitted as voluntary except for a late oral statement made at 5 p.m., which was excluded.

The Crown brought two applications to admit similar fact evidence in a prosecution for multiple commercial break and enter offences.

The first application sought admission of the accused’s prior convictions for numerous break and enters committed several years earlier.

The second sought to permit count‑to‑count similar fact reasoning among the charged offences.

The court held that the alleged similarities—such as targeting commercial food premises, nighttime entries, use of dark clothing, and removal of door glass—were generic and did not amount to a distinctive signature or sufficiently striking pattern.

The Crown also failed to establish a sufficient evidentiary link connecting the accused to the charged offences.

Both applications were therefore dismissed.