Jennifer Micallef

The appellant Crown appealed the acquittal of a high school teacher charged with voyeurism under s. 162(1)(c) of the Criminal Code after he used a concealed pen-camera to surreptitiously record female students engaged in ordinary school activities in common areas of the school.

The majority of the Court of Appeal had upheld the acquittal on the basis that the students were not in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal and entered a conviction, holding that circumstances giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy under s. 162(1) are circumstances in which a person would reasonably expect not to be the subject of the type of observation or recording that in fact occurred, taking into account the entire context.

The majority (Wagner C.J.) adopted a multi-factor contextual test informed by s. 8 Charter jurisprudence, while a concurring minority (Rowe J.) proposed a conjunctive test requiring both loss of control over one's image and infringement of sexual integrity.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder in the death of his wife at his second trial, following a hung jury at his first trial.

The appeal was allowed on the basis that the trial judge erred in law by refusing to remove trial counsel from the record when counsel sought removal on grounds of ethical concerns and breakdown of the client-solicitor relationship.

The trial judge's refusal to grant the removal application created an appearance of unfairness and constituted a miscarriage of justice, requiring a new trial.

The court also addressed several other grounds of appeal relating to the admissibility of third-party suspect evidence, demeanour evidence, police officer opinion evidence, and hearsay statements, providing guidance for the retrial.

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.