Jennifer Broderick

The accused, Jesse Thomson, faced charges including possession of cocaine for trafficking and various firearm offences.

The trial included a blended voir dire to determine the admissibility of his statements to police and evidence obtained from a vehicle search.

The court found Thomson's statements voluntary and that his Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) were not violated, justifying the admission of evidence.

The police had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and search based on reliable informant tips and corroborating surveillance.

Ultimately, the Crown proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to a finding of guilt on all counts.

At a preliminary inquiry into charges of attempted murder and weapons offences, the Crown sought to ask the alleged victim to make an in-dock identification of the accused.

The defence objected, arguing that the probative value of such identification was outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

The court ruled that while in-dock identifications have minimal evidentiary value, particularly where the witness did not know the accused prior to the incident and was less certain in a prior photo lineup, the evidence was admissible at the preliminary inquiry stage.

The court distinguished between the preliminary inquiry context, where the Crown's case must be assessed at its highest, and the trial context, where a trial judge might exclude such evidence to protect a jury from undue prejudice.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ministry of Transportation's alleged refusal to grant a development permit for a gas bar unless the applicant entered into an agreement restricting the transfer of the lands.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Ministry had not purported to require the agreement, but rather offered it as an alternative to standard setback requirements.

Furthermore, the application was premature as the applicant had not submitted a revised site plan, meaning no statutory power of decision had yet been exercised.

The defendant pleaded guilty to identity theft and fraud charges involving the theft of the victim's identity to fraudulently obtain and use multiple credit cards over a two-month period in 2014.

The defendant was 31 years old with no prior criminal record at the time of the offences, though he was on bail for similar charges in Toronto.

The Crown sought 90 days imprisonment; the defence sought a time-served sentence.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with three years probation, including 150 hours of community service, substance abuse counseling, and strict conditions including no contact with the victims and restrictions on possession of identification documents and internet access.

Restitution of $4,218.77 was ordered to American Express, and a victim surcharge of $800 was imposed.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that the delay between the laying of charges for criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm and the scheduled trial date was unreasonable.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Morin and analyzed the length of delay, waiver, reasons for delay, and prejudice to the accused.

Much of the delay was attributed to inherent complexity, defence availability, and institutional factors, with a smaller portion attributable to the Crown.

The court found no clear prejudice to the accused and concluded the delay was not unreasonable in the circumstances of a complex case involving numerous witnesses and technical evidence.