James Mencel

The accused, Daniel Neill, brought a motion to exclude evidence (images and photographs from a seized Blackberry memory card) in a child pornography trial, alleging violations of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The court found two breaches: (1) delayed filing of the initial report to a Justice regarding the seized Blackberry, and (2) failure to file a detailed report to a Justice regarding the seized data (images and photographs) after extraction.

Despite these breaches, the court applied the R. v. Grant factors and concluded that the evidence should not be excluded.

The seriousness of the state conduct was attenuated by the lawful seizure of the phone and the unsettled nature of the law regarding data reporting.

The impact on the accused's Charter interests was minimal as the items would not have been returned.

Society's interest in adjudicating serious child pornography offences on their merits weighed heavily.

The motion to exclude was dismissed, and the evidence was admitted.

The court criticized the police conduct as "sloppy" and "careless" but found no basis for exclusion under s. 24(2).

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to establish sufficient evidence to commit the accused to stand trial on charges of first degree murder of a seven-year-old step-son and attempted murder of a bank loans officer.

The defence conceded evidence supported committal on second degree murder and aggravated assault but contested first degree murder and attempted murder.

The court found evidence of planning and deliberation for the murder charge based on the accused's journal entries demonstrating prior animus toward the victim and brooding about the need to protect his biological son.

For attempted murder, the court found the accused's actions—stabbing the victim twice in the neck area and attempting a third strike—demonstrated intent to kill, particularly in context of the murderous rampage and threats recorded in the journal.

The accused was committed to stand trial on both charges.

The defendant was charged with nine counts of fraud-related offences arising from personation to apply for and obtain credit cards that were allegedly used to defraud three financial institutions.

The defendant was also charged with two breaches of a recognizance of bail.

The central issue was whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the person who committed the offences.

The court examined identification evidence, including bank surveillance videos, financial transaction records, and officer recognition evidence.

The court found the defendant guilty on four counts (counts 1, 2, 4, and 5) and not guilty on five counts (counts 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9), primarily due to insufficient evidence linking the defendant to certain transactions and breaches.

The Crown sought to introduce viva voce evidence from a police officer to identify an individual in a bank surveillance video as part of a fraud prosecution.

The defendant opposed the evidence, arguing it did not meet the test established in R. v. Leaney and that the officer's evidence was tainted by prior dealings with the defendant.

The court conducted an admissibility ruling on a voir dire, examining whether the officer had sufficient acquaintance with the defendant and whether the officer was in a better position than the court to identify the person in the video.

The court found the Leaney test was satisfied and admitted the evidence.

The applicant sought a retroactive Rowbotham order to stay charges unless the Attorney General paid for legal fees incurred during a completed preliminary hearing.

The applicant's initial Legal Aid certificate expired due to oversight, and a subsequent application was denied due to increased income.

While the Crown agreed to fund counsel for the upcoming trial, it refused to cover the preliminary hearing costs.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction to grant a retroactive Rowbotham order, as the applicant's fair trial rights for the preliminary hearing were not in jeopardy, having been represented by counsel throughout.

The application was dismissed.