Janet Booy

The Crown sought to introduce expert evidence from a cellphone Health App to show the accused was pacing at home shortly after a fatal fire.

The defence opposed, arguing the underlying science was unreliable.

The court applied the White Burgess framework and found that the Health App data was not reliable for forensic purposes in this case, as there was no independent evidence the accused was walking or running with the phone, and the app could register false positives.

The evidence was ruled inadmissible.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of hearsay statements made by a deceased victim, Alan Rutherford, identifying his assailant in a first-degree murder case.

The Crown sought to admit these statements as dying declarations and spontaneous utterances.

The defence challenged their reliability due to inconsistencies among witnesses and a minor factual error by the declarant.

The court found that the statements met the criteria for both traditional hearsay exceptions and the principled approach, concluding that the defence's objections went to the weight of the evidence rather than its threshold admissibility.

The Crown's application to admit the statements was granted.

This ruling addresses an application by an accused, charged with two counts of first-degree murder, to sit at counsel table during trial.

The court outlines twelve principles governing such applications, emphasizing a balance between the accused's right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, and courtroom security.

The court rejects the notion that the defence bears an onus to show exceptional circumstances.

Applying these principles, the court grants the application, permitting the accused to sit at counsel table, subject to being restrained by silent ankle shackles and appropriate security placement.

Haiden Suarez-Noa was convicted of second-degree murder.

The court determined the period of parole ineligibility, which must be between 10 and 25 years.

The Crown sought 17-18 years, while the defence argued for 10-12 years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the domestic nature of the murder, the victim's vulnerability, the number of stab wounds, and the offender's post-offence conduct.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record, turning himself in (albeit 12 hours later), and expressions of regret for his actions' impact on his son.

The court rejected the lower end of the jury's recommendations and the defence's proposed range, finding the offender's remorse less than sincere regarding the victim's loss.

The court fixed the parole ineligibility period at 15 years, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, and issued a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a non-contact order.

The defence sought to admit expert psychiatric evidence from Dr. Julian Gojer on dissociative amnesia to explain the accused's memory loss regarding the number of stabbings, arguing it was relevant to credibility and intent in a second-degree murder trial.

The Crown opposed, arguing the evidence was unnecessary, inadmissible, confusing, and lacked probative value, especially since Dr. Gojer could not conclusively state the accused experienced dissociation or link it to intent.

The court, applying the Mohan and White Burgess tests for expert evidence admissibility, found that the evidence had limited probative value and was not necessary to assist the jury, as the issue of memory loss for the number of stabs was within the jury's common sense.

The court concluded that the prejudicial effect of the evidence, including potential confusion and disproportionate weight, substantially outweighed its probative value.

The application to admit the expert opinion was dismissed.

The applicant sought an order to allow a race-based challenge for cause using a multiple-choice question format during jury selection.

The Crown did not oppose the race-based challenge itself, but objected to the proposed multiple-choice format, advocating for the standard "Parks question" approach.

The court granted the applicant's request to conduct a race-based challenge for cause but denied the use of the specific multiple-choice format.

The judge ruled that the standard open-ended Parks question was sufficient and that the proposed format would unduly prolong the process and potentially confuse prospective jurors without being more effective.

The offender pleaded guilty to sexual interference of a seven-year-old child and was convicted after trial of making child pornography.

The offender sexually assaulted the victim in her home in the early morning hours while the victim's father videotaped the abuse.

The offender had previously watched multiple videos of the victim being sexually abused by her father before participating in the assault.

The court imposed a global sentence of seven years in penitentiary less credit for pre-sentence custody, with the child pornography conviction resulting in a consecutive sentence of one year and four months.

The accused was charged with making child pornography contrary to section 163.1(2) of the Criminal Code.

The accused had pleaded guilty to sexual interference but entered a not guilty plea to the making child pornography charge.

The Crown alleged that the accused had actual knowledge that his friend was videotaping the sexual assault of a seven-year-old child, or alternatively, that the accused was wilfully blind to this fact.

The trial judge found the accused guilty based on the totality of the evidence, including the accused's prior knowledge of similar videotaping by the friend, the close proximity of the videotaping device during the assault, and the accused's implausible testimony regarding his lack of awareness.

The offender pleaded guilty to multiple serious offences including sexual interference with a child, possession and production of child pornography, voyeurism, assault of a police officer, and failure to appear in court.

The victim was the offender's stepdaughter, whom he systematically and repeatedly sexually assaulted over approximately 18 months when she was between 6 and 8 years old.

The offender recorded the assaults and made them available to others.

A forensic examination of his electronic devices revealed an extensive collection of child pornography, the bulk of which consisted of images and videos of the victim.

The offender also surreptitiously recorded his 16-year-old stepdaughter showering.

The court imposed a global sentence of 13 years and 3 months, with credit for pre-trial custody reducing the remaining sentence to 10 years and 205 days.

Ancillary orders included DNA registration, lifetime sex offender registry, lifetime weapons prohibition, and a section 161 order.

Christopher Newton applied for severance of accused persons in a multi-count indictment, seeking to be tried separately from co-accused Shaquille Collins.

Newton argued that joinder would delay his trial beyond a reasonable time and confuse the jury due to different charges (second-degree murder for Newton, first-degree murder for Collins) and complex liability paths.

The Crown opposed, arguing the evidence was intertwined, separate trials would be inefficient, and juries are capable of following complex instructions.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the 13-week delay was not significant enough to override the presumption of joint trials, and that jurors are capable of understanding complex legal instructions.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual interference and two counts of making child pornography involving a seven-year-old victim.

The offences occurred on two separate dates following online communications with the victim's stepfather.

The offender participated in the sexual abuse of the child and recorded the incidents.

A global sentence of eight years imprisonment was imposed, less time served of 404 days, resulting in a net sentence of six years and four months.

Extensive ancillary orders were made including lifetime sex offender registration, firearms prohibition, and strict conditions regarding contact with minors and internet access.

The accused, a bank employee, was charged with fraud over $5,000 after allegedly providing customer identifying information to non-employees who used it to defraud customers.

The Crown sought to admit a statement the accused made to bank investigators during a workplace interview.

The Crown conceded the investigators were persons in authority.

The court found that the accused's statement was voluntary, as there were no threats, promises, or quid pro quo offers, and the accused spoke out of a desire to mitigate his obvious guilt rather than statutory or employer compulsion.

The statement was ruled admissible.