Jacqueline Strecansky

The accused, Jeremy Gough, charged with first-degree murder, brought a pre-trial motion challenging the admissibility of two videotaped statements made to police.

The first statement was challenged on grounds of voluntariness and breaches of Charter rights (ss. 7, 10(a), 10(b)), alleging he was a suspect and detained without proper caution or counsel notification.

The second statement was challenged on voluntariness and as tainted by the first.

The court found the Crown failed to prove the voluntariness of the first statement beyond a reasonable doubt.

Alternatively, the court found Gough was psychologically detained by police without being informed of his Charter rights, leading to breaches of ss. 7, 10(a), and 10(b).

Consequently, both statements were ruled inadmissible at trial.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to determine the admissibility of ante mortem statements made by the deceased, Jessica Scanlon, to her sister, friend, and boyfriend, in a first-degree murder trial against Jeremy Gough.

The statements concerned the nature of Scanlon's relationship with Gough, their separation, and Gough's reaction.

The court found the statements relevant and material to Gough's state of mind, Scanlon's state of mind, and motive.

Applying the principled exception to the hearsay rule, the court found the statements met the necessity and threshold reliability criteria, noting that most were recorded text messages and corroborated by multiple recipients available for cross-examination.

The court also determined that the probative value of the statements outweighed their minimal prejudicial effect, making them admissible.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, brought a pre-trial motion concerning the admissibility of and testimony about two police-prepared PowerPoint presentations containing video clips of a vehicle and an unidentified male.

The court ruled the presentations admissible for efficiency and organization, but restricted the police officer's testimony regarding lay opinion evidence on vehicle identification.

The officer could testify to factual observations and reasons for selection, but not offer an opinion on whether vehicles matched or were the same.

Video clips of the unidentified male were deemed relevant circumstantial evidence and admissible.

The court also allowed the use of annotations in the presentations and directed mid-trial instructions to the jury.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with an excess blood alcohol concentration.

The Crown's case relied on breath samples obtained at a police detachment following a roadside approved screening device test.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of the breath samples under sections 8 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that the Crown failed to establish that the roadside device was an approved screening device due to imprecision in the officer's testimony regarding the device's identification.

The trial judge found that the Crown had proven the device was an approved screening device based on the officer's reference to it as such and the description of its functioning, relying on the Court of Appeal's guidance in R. v. Gundy.

The defendant was found guilty as charged.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with blood alcohol concentration exceeding the lawful limit following a traffic stop on the Queen Elizabeth Way.

The Crown presented evidence of erratic driving, observations of impairment by the arresting officer, and breath test results of 143 and 141 mg/100ml.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of the breath results on Charter grounds, alleging a violation of his right to counsel of choice.

The court acquitted on the impaired charge due to insufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, but convicted on the excess blood alcohol charge after finding no Charter breach and determining that even if a breach occurred, the breath results would be admissible under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol with over 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood on March 8, 2015, in St. Catharines.

The defence raised Charter applications alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) during the roadside investigation and arrest process, arguing that delays in making the approved screening device demand and providing right to counsel information breached the "forthwith" requirement.

The court found Charter breaches but admitted the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that exclusion would not be necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The Crown proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in a conviction.

The accused pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and assaulting a police sergeant with intent to resist arrest.

The Crown proceeded summarily and sought 90 days imprisonment served intermittently, while defence counsel sought a conditional discharge.

The court rejected the conditional discharge as inappropriate and contrary to the public interest, finding that the accused's conduct—fleeing from police at speeds exceeding 120 km/h and resisting arrest—posed serious risks to public safety.

Instead, the court imposed a conditional sentence of 90 days to be served in the community, followed by two years probation, with strict conditions including house arrest, a driving prohibition, community service, and a DNA order.

The applicant sought to overturn a firearms officer's decision to revoke his licence to possess and acquire firearms.

The firearms officer revoked the licence based on concerns about the applicant's responsibility and discipline as a gun owner, citing a pattern of aggressive and irrational behaviour, multiple criminal harassment charges, a bitter feud with his cousin, threatening communications with a former girlfriend, and a suicide attempt.

The court upheld the revocation, finding the firearms officer's decision was clearly reasonable and that the applicant lacked the responsibility and discipline required of gun owners.

The court found the applicant's credibility severely compromised by his inconsistent statements and pattern of refusing to accept adverse decisions.