Jason I. Easton

The applicants, charged with drug and firearm offences, brought a Charter motion alleging their s. 8 rights were violated by a search of a residence based on a warrant obtained using confidential informant information.

The court found that the redacted Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient credibility regarding the informants, resulting in a s. 8 breach.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the seized evidence (fentanyl, cocaine, and a firearm) under s. 24(2), emphasizing society's strong interest in adjudicating serious offences on their merits.

The applicants sought a declaration that their section 8 Charter rights were violated by the police and the exclusion of evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The Crown conceded standing for one applicant but contested it for the other, arguing he lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the target apartment.

The court ruled that the contested applicant had standing, relying on the totality of the Crown's allegations to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy, distinguishing the case from R. v. Osman.

The accused was charged with conspiracy, break and enter, and possession of stolen property relating to the theft of copper plates from railway boxcars.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of two unsavoury accomplices, cellphone tower data, and similar fact evidence from a prior conviction.

The court found the accomplice testimony contradictory regarding the accused's involvement in the break and enters, resulting in acquittals on those charges.

However, the court found the cellphone data and similar fact evidence sufficiently confirmed the accomplices' testimony regarding the accused's assistance in loading the stolen copper, resulting in a conviction for possession of stolen property.

The offender was convicted of assault, threatening to kill an animal, sexual assault, and criminal harassment after luring the complainant to a remote cottage under false pretences.

The court found significant aggravating factors, including premeditation, the offender's prior record for sexual assault, and his subsequent stalking behaviour.

The court imposed a global sentence of 5.5 years imprisonment net of time served, along with restitution, a victim fine surcharge, and mandatory ancillary orders.

The accused was found guilty on four counts: common assault, uttering threats, sexual assault, and criminal harassment.

The case involved competing narratives regarding consensual sexual activity at a secluded cottage, followed by a car accident and subsequent harassment.

The court found the accused's testimony lacked credibility, while the complainant's evidence, despite some discrepancies and delayed reporting, was accepted as honest and reliable.

The court applied the "rape shield" provisions of the Criminal Code and found no Kienapple overlap for the distinct offences.

This endorsement addresses an application by the accused, N.K., under section 276 of the Criminal Code, seeking to introduce evidence of prior sexual activity with the complainant during a sexual assault trial.

The accused claimed a long-standing sexual relationship existed, which the complainant was expected to deny.

The court conducted a two-step process, first determining the evidence's potential admissibility, then holding a voir dire to assess actual admissibility.

The court reiterated the "twin myths" prohibition, preventing the use of prior sexual activity to infer consent or diminish credibility.

While the accused sought to use the evidence to prove actual consent, the court found this indistinguishable from prohibited reasoning.

However, the court ruled the evidence admissible for the limited purpose of challenging the complainant's credibility, specifically her expected testimony that the relationship was platonic.

The court emphasized that the sexual nature and duration of the relationship were in issue, not explicit details of sexual acts, and that this balance protected the complainant's privacy while ensuring fairness to the accused.

A young person was charged with sexual assault of a 13-year-old complainant following a party in Belleville, Ontario.

The Crown proceeded by indictment.

The defence admitted the sexual assault occurred but contested the identity of the perpetrator.

The trial focused on identification evidence, including the complainant's testimony, a properly conducted photo line-up, DNA evidence from a t-shirt found at the scene, and corroborating witness testimony.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, and the identification evidence, considered as a whole, established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

A young person was jointly charged with his mother and her boyfriend with production of marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking following a search warrant execution at their residence.

The Crown conceded the production charge was weak and it was dismissed.

At trial, the Crown proved that marijuana plants, packaged marijuana, digital scales, and plastic baggies were found in the accused's bedroom.

The accused testified that the bedroom was a recreation and laundry room used by the entire family, not his bedroom, and that he slept on couches in the living room.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as implausible, internally inconsistent, and manufactured.

The court found the accused guilty of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, finding he had knowledge of and control over the drugs in his bedroom and was either a principal or aider and abetter in the criminal enterprise.