James C. Martin

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder following a trial in which the key witness refused to testify.

The trial judge admitted the witness's prior statements as hearsay under the principled approach, finding that threshold reliability had been established.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Applying R. v. Bradshaw, 2017 SCC 35, a majority of the panel dismissed the appeal largely for the reasons of Dickson J.A., while Karakatsanis and Brown JJ. would have allowed the appeal substantially for the reasons of Bennett J.A. The appeal was dismissed and the first degree murder conviction upheld.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which set aside the respondent's conviction for possessing marijuana and cocaine for the purposes of trafficking and ordered a new trial.

The central issue was whether a drug purchase call intercepted by police on the accused's cell phone constituted admissible evidence or inadmissible hearsay.

The Court held that implied assertions tendered for the truth of their contents are subject to the hearsay rule, just as express assertions are.

On a principled analysis, the single drug purchase call failed to meet the requirements of necessity and reliability, as no effort was made to locate the caller despite having his address, and the call lacked sufficient indicia of reliability.

The appeal was dismissed and a new trial ordered.

This criminal appeal considered whether a roadside detention in a police cruiser and a related pat-down search violated Charter protections against arbitrary detention and unreasonable search.

A majority found the pat-down search unconstitutional because securing the accused in the cruiser was not reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

The majority nevertheless admitted the cocaine evidence under section 24(2) based on good-faith conduct and evolving detention-law context.

The conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking was upheld.

The appeal was dismissed with dissenting reasons favouring exclusion and acquittal.