J. Berkes

Following convictions for child pornography offences, the Crown sought a dangerous offender assessment and obtained the offender's correctional records.

The offender brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing the Crown breached its section 7 Charter obligations by failing to disclose these records prior to trial.

The court found a technical breach of the disclosure obligation because the records contained mental health diagnoses that were not clearly irrelevant to the trial.

However, the application was dismissed because the non-disclosure did not impact the offender's right to make full answer and defence, as the records only related to the voluntariness of a statement the Crown did not adduce at trial.

In a sexual assault trial arising from a same-day dating-app encounter, the court first dismissed an application for a stay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

Although the post-adjournment delay stemmed from avoidable mid-trial issues under ss. 276 and 278 of the Criminal Code, responsibility for that delay was shared by both Crown and defence, and the 15-month total delay was not shown to be markedly longer than it reasonably should have been.

On the merits, the Crown relied solely on the complainant's evidence to prove absence of consent.

The trial judge found significant credibility and reliability concerns, concluded the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to all of the sexual activity, and entered an acquittal.

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder for beating his wife to death with a metal mallet.

The court considered the brutal nature of the offence and the fact that the victim was his intimate partner and caregiver as significant aggravating factors.

The offender's major depressive disorder with psychotic features, his lack of prior criminal record, and his admissions to police were considered mitigating factors.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 14 years.

The defendant was charged with first-degree murder for the blunt force killing of his wife.

He admitted to causing her death but raised the defence of not criminally responsible (NCR) under s. 16(1) of the Criminal Code, arguing that his major depressive disorder with psychotic features rendered him incapable of knowing his actions were morally wrong.

The court rejected the NCR defence, finding that despite his false belief that his wife intended to put him in a home, he retained the capacity to make a rational choice and knew his actions were wrong.

The court inferred the requisite intent for murder from the circumstantial evidence and found the defendant guilty of second-degree murder.

The accused was charged with multiple sexual offences after an undercover police officer posing as a 14-year-old boy on social media applications received sexually explicit communications and images.

The Crown's case on identity was entirely circumstantial, relying on the use of the accused's phone number, his likeness in the images, and his residence.

The court found that while the evidence was cogent, the lack of metadata, the failure to investigate another resident's devices, and the possibility of shared login credentials left a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused was the person communicating with the officer.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The accused, a chartered accountant, was convicted of defrauding the Government of Canada of income tax and GST/HST over $5,000.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence and a $500,000 fine, arguing the fraud exceeded $1 million.

The court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the fraud exceeded $1 million, so the statutory aggravating factor did not apply.

Considering the accused's lack of prior record, good character, and the availability of a conditional sentence at the time of the offence, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day and a fine of $445,789.30.

The applicant, charged with fraud related to an alleged RRSP stripping scheme, brought a Charter application under ss. 8 and 24(2) to exclude evidence seized from various financial institutions and his residence.

He argued the affiant made intentional misrepresentations and omissions in the Informations to Obtain (ITOs).

The court conducted a Garofoli review and found that, despite some minor errors and one misrepresentation regarding a CRA auditor's opinion, there remained sufficient evidence upon which the issuing justices could have granted the authorizations.

The court also found the applicant had a negligible expectation of privacy in the bank and business records.

The application was dismissed, and the court noted that even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would be admissible under s. 24(2).