Jennifer Caskie

The applicant sought access to manually manipulate her seized cell phone, arguing that the forensic extractions provided by the Crown might be incomplete.

The Crown had provided digital and forensic copies of the extraction but refused manual access without strict conditions, arguing that access is governed by s. 605 of the Criminal Code.

The court dismissed the application, finding that even if an independent right to access existed outside s. 605, the applicant failed to show an air of reality or provide evidence beyond mere speculation that the forensic extractions were deficient.

The accused, charged with kidnapping and human trafficking, brought a Charter application challenging production orders for their cell phone records.

They argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable grounds to believe the records would afford evidence of the offences, as there was no evidence they possessed or used cell phones during the alleged offences.

The court agreed, finding the ITO relied on mere suspicion rather than credibly-based probability, resulting in a breach of section 8 of the Charter.

A subsequent hearing will determine if the evidence should be excluded under section 24(2).

The applicant, charged with human trafficking and related offences, brought an application to exclude evidence obtained from a search of her rented vehicle, alleging a breach of her s. 8 Charter rights.

Police initially entered the vehicle without a warrant to retrieve the complainant's property, during which they observed wallets and identification, prompting them to obtain a search warrant.

The court dismissed the application, finding that even if the observations from the initial entry were excised from the Information to Obtain, there were sufficient grounds to issue the warrant.

Furthermore, the court held that even if a s. 8 breach occurred, the evidence would be admissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter as the police acted in good faith and its admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct, specifically statements made 20 to 30 years prior expressing urges to harm homosexual men, to prove motive in a first-degree murder trial.

The court applied the Handy test for similar fact evidence and ruled the historical statements inadmissible, finding that their probative value was diminished by the passage of time and lack of action, while the risk of moral and reasoning prejudice was significant.

However, more recent statements made by the accused in 2014 were ruled admissible as they were proximate in time and relevant to intent.