Jasna Drnda

The defendant was charged with assault with a weapon (a Chrysler PT Cruiser), uttering a threat to cause death, dangerous driving, and failing to stop and give his name and address after an accident.

The Crown's case relied on eyewitness identification and circumstantial evidence.

The main issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the driver of the vehicle that struck the victim.

The court found the direct identification evidence (courtroom identification by the victim and police officer identification from video) to be inherently unreliable and subject to significant frailties.

While circumstantial evidence established that the vehicle involved was registered to an address where the defendant lived and was found shortly after the incident with a warm engine, this did not eliminate reasonable doubt as to the defendant's identity as the driver.

The court noted that proper investigative procedures (photo lineup, seizure of the toque, obtaining the mall video) were not conducted, which could have resolved the identification issues.

All charges were dismissed due to reasonable doubt.

The applicants sought disclosure of the complete investigative file relating to a homicide investigation that formed the basis for wiretap authorizations under Part VI of the Criminal Code.

The Crown resisted disclosure, arguing that materials not explicitly relied upon in the Information to Obtain were irrelevant and protected by public interest privilege.

The court held that the accused's right to make full answer and defence applies to pre-trial evidentiary hearings, including Garofoli applications.

The court established that materials in the "investigative file" are presumptively relevant and should be disclosed, defined as all materials accumulated by the investigating agency as a consequence of its investigative efforts in the investigation giving rise to the authorization itself.

The court ordered disclosure of specified materials from the homicide investigation file, subject to redactions protecting informer privilege, while declining to order disclosure of the entire investigative file to prevent needless complexity.

A young person pleaded guilty to five offences including inciting hatred against identifiable groups, mischief related to religious properties, uttering threats, possession of weapons, and failure to comply with a youth sentence.

The Crown applied for an adult sentence under section 64(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court rejected the application, finding that while the presumption of reduced moral culpability was rebutted due to the planned nature of the offences and the offender's near-adult age, a youth sentence would be sufficient to hold the young person accountable.

The court emphasized the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration, noting the positive progress made by the offender while in custody and the availability of intensive counselling and support services within the youth justice system.

The accused were charged with seventeen counts including uttering threats, forcible confinement, extortion, assault, intimidation, being unlawfully in a dwelling, and firearms offences.

The charges arose from incidents occurring in late November and early December 2013 in an apartment building in Ottawa.

The Crown alleged the accused took over an apartment and committed various crimes within it.

Following a trial on the merits, the court found the accused guilty on several counts related to possession of a prohibited firearm, threatening with a firearm, and extortion, but acquitted them on other counts including unlawful confinement and various assault-related charges.