J. Andres Hannah-Suarez

The appellant appealed her conviction for impaired driving, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and challenging the trial judge's Charter rulings.

She claimed her trial counsel failed to advise her of the option to testify only on the voir dire, leading her to make damaging admissions during the trial proper.

The summary conviction appeal judge dismissed the appeal, finding that trial counsel's strategic decisions did not fall below the standard of reasonable professional assistance and did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal judge also upheld the trial judge's decisions to deny a stay of proceedings for lost video evidence and to admit the police officers' observations despite Charter breaches.

The accused was charged with voyeurism for taking 'up-skirt' videos of women on public transit and at his workplace.

The accused claimed he hired escorts and had their consent to live out a fantasy.

The court rejected the accused's statement as inconsistent with the video evidence, which showed him quickly following unsuspecting women.

The court found that the recordings captured the anal region (buttocks) of the subjects, who had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and entered a finding of guilt.

The accused brought two pre-trial applications in a historical sexual assault prosecution.

First, he sought production of complainants’ therapeutic and medical records under s. 278 of the Criminal Code.

Second, he sought permission under s. 276 to cross‑examine the complainants regarding prior sexual assaults committed by another individual, arguing it was relevant to testing the reliability of their memories.

The court held the defence failed to demonstrate that the requested third‑party records were likely relevant or necessary in the interests of justice, emphasizing the strong privacy interests in therapeutic records and the prohibition on speculative fishing expeditions.

However, limited cross‑examination regarding the other assaults was permitted solely to test memory and reliability, not to invoke the prohibited “twin myths.”

Sentencing decision for possession of a restricted firearm together with readily accessible ammunition.

Police executed a search warrant at an apartment where the accused attempted to discard a handgun through a window; numerous rounds of ammunition and a magazine were also discovered in the residence.

Although the court previously found a breach of the accused’s s. 8 Charter rights relating to the search warrant, the evidence was admitted under the framework in R. v. Grant.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence in firearms offences, particularly where the accused possessed a handgun and large quantities of ammunition in a residence with young children while subject to a prohibition order.

Considering both mitigating factors and significant aggravating features, the court imposed a penitentiary sentence.

The applicant sought exclusion of a firearm, ammunition, and related evidence under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms following the execution of a search warrant.

The court found the warrant was issued without sufficient information to establish reasonable and probable grounds, resulting in a breach of s. 8 of the Charter.

However, the firearm was discarded from a window during execution of the warrant, which the court held constituted abandonment with only a tenuous causal connection to the Charter breach.

Although the later warrantless seizure of ammunition from a suitcase violated s. 8, the court applied the Grant framework and concluded the evidence should not be excluded.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.