Jeff Pearson

The Crown applied for a five-year firearm prohibition order against Gary Schill under s.111(1) of the Criminal Code, alleging he posed a public safety risk due to his affiliation with the extremist organization Diagolon, his anti-government rhetoric, discussions about acquiring weaponry and combat training, and possession of large amounts of incompatible ammunition.

The court found the police officer's belief that a prohibition was desirable in the interests of public safety to be objectively reasonable, based on cumulative evidence of Schill's deep ideological ties to Diagolon, his intent to engage in illegal activities espoused by the group, and the presence of concerning items at his residence.

The application was granted, and a five-year prohibition order was issued.

The appellant, Devon Dinall, appealed his convictions for trafficking cocaine, conspiracy to traffic cocaine, and possession of proceeds of crime.

His defence at trial was that he was involved in a marijuana trafficking conspiracy, not cocaine.

The primary ground of appeal argued that the trial judge erred in jury instructions on conspiracy and the co-conspirator's exception to the hearsay rule, specifically by failing to instruct on the possibility of multiple overlapping conspiracies and misrepresenting his admission.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury charge, viewed functionally and as a whole, clearly conveyed that conviction required proof of participation in a cocaine conspiracy, despite one misstatement.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's instruction regarding expert evidence on drug slang.

A young person was charged with invitation to sexual touching, sexual assault, and failing to comply with a youth court sentence.

The Crown's case rested on eyewitness testimony from a six-year-old witness and DNA evidence showing the alleged victim's saliva on the accused's underwear.

The accused testified that the DNA presence was explained by his use of a bloody tissue to clean himself after the alleged victim injured himself.

The court found the eyewitness credible and rejected the accused's explanation as illogical and contradicted by forensic evidence.

The court found the accused guilty on all three counts.

The accused applied for a directed verdict of acquittal after the Crown closed its case on a charge of attempted murder.

The Crown relied primarily on eyewitness recognition evidence from the complainant, who identified the accused through photo line-ups and an in-dock identification.

The defence argued the identification narrative was irreparably tainted by flawed police photo line-up procedures and minimal prior familiarity between the witness and the accused.

The court held that although the December 6, 2010 photo line-up was not ideal and raised legitimate concerns, it still met the threshold reliability required to be left to the jury.

The court concluded that the complainant’s recognition evidence and in-dock identification, if believed, could support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore the matter should proceed to the jury.

During a jury trial for attempted murder, the accused applied for a stay of proceedings after police lost the photograph used in the initial photo line-up in which the victim identified him.

The court found that the police negligently failed to preserve the photograph, breaching the Crown’s disclosure obligations and the accused’s s. 7 Charter right to make full answer and defence.

However, the court held that the breach did not cause irreparable prejudice because a video recording of the photo line-up and the remaining photographs allowed the defence to challenge the reliability of the identification evidence.

The court concluded that the evidentiary deficiencies actually weakened the prosecution’s case before the jury.

A stay of proceedings was therefore not warranted.