James Spangenberg

The accused brought a Charter motion arguing that his arrest for murder was unlawful because police lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

He sought exclusion of evidence obtained incident to arrest under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court reviewed the information available to police at the time, including reports from family members, alarming text messages, and investigative steps linking the accused to the missing person.

Applying the principles governing lawful arrest and the threshold of reasonable and probable grounds, the court held that the officers acted reasonably and in good faith in rapidly evolving circumstances.

The court concluded that the grounds for arrest met the legal standard and that the evidence obtained incident to arrest was admissible.

The accused brought a motion to exclude numerous statements made to police following his arrest for murder, arguing breaches of the right to counsel, lack of voluntariness due to intoxication and depression, and improper police conduct.

The court reviewed the confessions rule and assessed voluntariness using the framework from Oickle and related jurisprudence, including factors such as threats, inducements, oppression, operating mind, and police trickery.

The court found that although the Crown conceded the inadmissibility of the initial arrest statement, the remaining statements were voluntary, as the accused had an operating mind, was properly cautioned, and often spoke spontaneously to officers without prompting.

The accused had been given opportunities to consult counsel and at times declined to do so, and later statements followed consultation with counsel.

The court further held that later statements were not tainted by the initial inadmissible statement and that a search warrant for the accused’s work computer, obtained based on his voluntary statement, was valid.

During a murder trial, the Crown sought to introduce evidence of alleged post‑offence sexual activity with the deceased and related internet searches to support an inference of planning and deliberation.

The court considered jurisprudence on the use of post‑offence conduct evidence and the risk of prejudice, including guidance from appellate authorities regarding jury misuse of such evidence.

Although the evidence was potentially relevant, the court found that it was highly inflammatory and not consistent only with the ultimate conclusion of guilt.

The probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

The Crown was therefore precluded from leading certain forensic evidence and from referencing the internet searches, subject to possible use in cross‑examination if the accused testified and put the timing of intercourse in issue.

The accused, charged with first degree murder involving the alleged use of a long gun, sought permission to challenge prospective jurors for cause based on potential bias relating to long gun ownership and gun control attitudes.

The defence proposed a series of voir dire questions aimed at uncovering juror views on long gun laws, gun regulation, and firearm ownership.

In support of the application, the defence called a retired police officer who conducted informal polling and internet research regarding public attitudes toward firearms.

The court held that the evidence failed to establish a widespread community bias regarding long gun ownership capable of creating a realistic potential for juror partiality.

Finding the polling evidence unreliable and insufficient under the test articulated in governing jurisprudence, the application to permit the proposed challenge for cause was dismissed.

During a criminal trial, a media representative sought permission to obtain copies of exhibits filed in evidence.

Neither the Crown nor the defence opposed the request.

The court relied on the open courts principle and adopted reasoning from prior authority supporting public access to trial exhibits unless restricted by law or where the material is overly graphic or privileged.

The court granted the request and established procedures for the Crown and the trial coordinator to provide copies of exhibits to the media, subject to the condition that no exhibit be published until it has been presented in open court before the jury.