James Foy

The applicant brought a pre-trial motion seeking the exclusion of evidence (drugs and firearms) seized during the execution of a search warrant at his residence, alleging violations of his rights under sections 7, 8, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The applicant argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient evidence to ground a reasonable belief for the search, and that police violated his right to counsel by delaying access, failing to hold off on questioning, and delaying notification of additional charges.

The court dismissed the applications, finding the ITO contained compelling, credible, and corroborated information from confidential informants.

The court also found no section 10(b) breaches, concluding that the delay in accessing counsel was reasonable to ensure privacy, the questioning was justified by officer safety, and the delay in notifying the applicant of new charges did not impact his Charter-protected interests.

In a prosecution for sexual assault and sexual interference, the court ruled on several pre-trial applications.

The court permitted a challenge for cause based on pre-trial publicity.

The court excluded proposed evidence from a former bandmate regarding a masturbation video and a statement about degradation, finding the prejudicial effect outweighed the probative value.

The court also excluded similar fact evidence from a prior sexual partner regarding sexual urination.

Finally, the court permitted the Crown to call an expert witness to testify about the basic neurobiology of trauma to dispel myths and stereotypes, but restricted the expert from applying that science specifically to the context of sexual assault.

The Crown brought an application for a sealing order and to hold part of the proceedings in camera regarding charges under the Security of Information Act.

The charges stemmed from intercepted telephone calls to a foreign embassy.

The Crown sought to prevent public disclosure of a redacted CSIS affidavit and warrant, arguing it would injure Canada's international relations.

Applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test, the court found that the orders were necessary to prevent a serious risk to the proper administration of justice and that the salutary effects outweighed the deleterious effects on the open court principle.

The application was granted.