Jennifer Mannen

A high school teacher was acquitted at trial of voyeurism contrary to s. 162(1)(c) of the Criminal Code after using a camera pen to surreptitiously record videos of female students focusing on their chests and cleavage.

The Crown appealed the acquittal on three grounds: whether the trial judge erred in finding no sexual purpose; whether evidence from a warrantless search should have been admitted under s. 24(2) of the Charter; and whether the students had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The majority (Feldman and Watt JJ.A.) allowed the Crown's appeal on the sexual purpose issue but dismissed it on the privacy issue, finding that students in public areas of a school do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Huscroft J.A. dissented, arguing the students did have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The appeal was ultimately dismissed.

The accused was charged with operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit ("Over 80") after failing a roadside screening device test.

The Crown sought to rely on breath test results from an approved instrument to establish the accused's blood alcohol level.

The defence brought a motion for a directed verdict, arguing that the Crown failed to prove the breath demand was made "as soon as practicable" as required by section 254(3) of the Criminal Code, thereby depriving the Crown of the statutory presumption of identity under section 258(1)(c).

The court dismissed the motion, holding that while the demand was delayed, the failure to comply with the timing requirement in section 254(3) does not render the breath test evidence inadmissible or deprive the Crown of the section 258 presumptions in the absence of a Charter application.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following a motor vehicle collision.

The Crown's case relied on breath test results showing 160 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The central issue was whether the defendant was in care and control of the vehicle at the time of the collision and whether the breath tests were taken within the required two-hour window.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the precise time of care and control, rendering the breath test evidence inadmissible.

Additionally, the court found insufficient evidence of impairment based on the officers' observations and the toxicologist's opinion alone.

The defendant was acquitted on both charges.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

The Crown proved both charges based on breath readings of 186 and 191 mg% obtained approximately 2.5 hours after the accident, expert toxicology evidence establishing the accused's BAC at the time of driving, and observations of impairment indicators by police officers at the scene.

Although the court found a Charter violation regarding the right to counsel, the evidence was admitted under section 24(2) as the breach was minor, the officers acted in good faith, and the evidence was reliable and necessary.

The accused was charged with sexual assault against a co-worker following an incident on August 24, 2012, near a transit station in Toronto.

The Crown alleged the accused kissed the complainant without consent, placed his hand down her pants, and put her breast in his mouth.

The accused testified the encounter was consensual, initiated by the complainant.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence was tainted by significant alcohol consumption, her inability to recall certain statements, and a prior inconsistent statement to her common-law partner regarding touching that allegedly occurred inside the bar.

The accused's evidence was not undermined in cross-examination.

The judge concluded the Crown failed to prove non-consensual touching beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.