Jacob Sone

During a trial for multiple counts of kidnapping, robbery, and firearm offences related to cargo thefts, the Crown brought an application to admit similar fact evidence across counts to prove identity.

The offences were alleged to have been committed by a rotating group of individuals.

The court applied the test from Perrier, finding that the offences were strikingly similar and that there was 'some evidence' linking each accused to the specific offences with which they were charged, primarily through cell phone tower data showing symmetry of movement.

The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect and ruled the similar fact evidence admissible across counts.

During a complex criminal trial involving multiple kidnappings and robberies, the Crown sought to introduce PowerPoint presentations as demonstrative aids to summarize voluminous cell phone records and plot cell tower locations.

The defence objected, arguing the presentations were misleading and distorted the evidence.

The court initially excluded the proposed presentations, finding they were confusing, assumed facts in dispute, and acted as a roadmap for the Crown's case.

However, the court subsequently admitted revised presentations that focused on individual phones, accurately distilled the records without assuming disputed facts, and were accompanied by cautionary instructions to the jury.

The accused brought pre-trial Charter motions seeking to exclude evidence from two separate police interactions.

For a July 2009 traffic stop, the court found the stop was unlawful due to a lack of credible police evidence regarding the reason for the stop, resulting in an arbitrary detention.

The evidence from that stop was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter due to serious state conduct involving a failure to take notes.

For an August 2009 interaction where police approached a parked vehicle in a high-crime area, the court found no detention occurred, as the accused was free to leave and voluntarily provided his identification.

Consequently, there were no s. 8 or s. 10(b) breaches, and the accused's statements were ruled voluntary and admissible.

During pre‑trial proceedings on a multi‑count indictment involving robbery, firearms, kidnapping, and related offences, the court conducted a voluntariness voir dire concerning a police statement made by one of the accused.

The defence argued the statement was involuntary because the accused allegedly did not receive a proper caution or right to counsel, and contended that breaches of ss. 7 and 10(b) of the Charter undermined the accused’s right to silence.

The Crown argued the statement was voluntary and that no inducements, oppression, or improper police conduct occurred.

The court held that the accused had been informed of the right to counsel, had consulted counsel, and understood the right to remain silent.

Considering the totality of the circumstances and the confessions rule, the Crown proved voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt and the statement was admissible.

The Crown sought to admit a roadside statement made by a vehicle passenger identifying himself to police during a traffic stop.

The defence argued the Crown had not proven the accused was the declarant and that the statement was involuntary because no caution was given.

The court held that for admissibility the Crown need only show “some evidence” that the accused was the declarant, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

On the evidence, identity was established and the statement was voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt because there were no inducements, oppression, or lack of operating mind.

The absence of a caution did not render the statement involuntary where the accused was not detained or suspected of an offence.

In a multi‑accused jury trial involving numerous serious offences including robbery, kidnapping, firearms offences, and conspiracy, the court determined several pre‑trial jury selection issues.

The Crown sought an order empanelling fourteen jurors and selecting two alternate jurors under s. 631 of the Criminal Code due to the expected length and complexity of the trial.

The court granted the application, finding additional jurors advisable to reduce the risk of mistrial if jurors were excused.

The court also permitted a race‑based challenge for cause under s. 638(1)(b) given that the accused were members of visible minority groups, and established appropriate challenge questions referencing potential bias.

Finally, the court ruled that rotating triers would be used and ordered the exclusion of other jurors from the courtroom during the challenge process in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

During a pre‑trial voir dire, the Crown sought to admit two statements made by one accused following separate arrests.

The defence challenged the voluntariness of the second statement given during a police interview after consultation with counsel.

The court reviewed the confession rule and assessed inducements, oppression, operating mind, and the overall interview context.

Although the accused was properly cautioned and treated appropriately before the interview, the officer’s aggressive tone, physical positioning, and comments undermining confidence in defence counsel raised concerns.

Considering the totality of the circumstances, the court found a reasonable doubt about voluntariness and excluded the November 18, 2009 statement while admitting the earlier statement.

In a pre-trial motion, the Crown sought to admit a police statement made by one of the co-accused.

The accused argued the statement was involuntary due to police inducements, oppression, and trickery during the interrogation.

The court applied the Oickle framework and found that the police conduct was appropriate, the accused's will was not overborne, and no shocking trickery was used.

The statement was ruled voluntary and admissible.

The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg under the Criminal Code.

The appeal argued that the trial judge erred in determining that the breath samples were taken within two hours of the appellant last operating the vehicle, thereby improperly applying the statutory presumption under s. 258.

The appellate court reviewed the trial judge’s credibility findings concerning a civilian witness and police officer regarding the timing of events.

It held that the trial judge was entitled to accept portions of the witness’s evidence while rejecting others and that the factual findings were supported by the evidence.

No palpable or overriding error was found in the determination that the breath tests were taken within the required two‑hour window.

The court heard consolidated summary conviction appeals concerning police authority to stop motorists emerging from LCBO stores or licensed establishments to assess sobriety.

One trial judge had excluded breathalyzer evidence and acquitted an accused after finding that a targeted stop outside an LCBO constituted arbitrary detention contrary to s. 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, while two other trial judges upheld convictions following similar stops near bars.

The court held that s. 216 of the Highway Traffic Act authorizes random roadside stops related to highway safety, including targeting motorists leaving alcohol-related establishments, even without prior signs of impairment.

Such stops are constitutionally valid under the Charter as reasonable limits justified under s. 1.

The court also held that videotaping detainees in a telephone room did not violate s. 10(b) where conversations with counsel were not recorded and there was no evidence that the accused believed their consultations lacked privacy.

The Crown's appeal from acquittal was allowed and the conviction appeals were dismissed.