Jeremy Tatum

The appellant was convicted of 33 counts of voyeurism based on video recordings found on a USB device seized from a safe in his condominium.

He appealed, challenging the validity of the warrant authorizing the search of the safes.

The application judge had found that the information to obtain disclosed sufficient credible and reliable evidence to support the issuing justice's conclusion that a digital storage device would be found in the safes and would afford evidence of the offences under investigation.

The Court of Appeal held that the application judge made no extricable legal error, as his findings were rooted in the evidence and reflected permissible common-sense reasoning rather than speculation or impermissible propensity reasoning.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, convicted of firearms offences, applied for a review of a decision denying him bail pending appeal under s. 680 of the Criminal Code.

Despite the Crown consenting to release, the bail judge had denied bail based on the seriousness of the offence and the perceived weakness of the sentence appeal.

The Court of Appeal found that the bail judge erred in principle by failing to consider the merit of the conviction appeal and the numerous public safety factors supporting release.

The application was granted and bail was ordered on the terms proposed by the parties.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearms offences, arguing the trial judge erred in failing to exclude a handgun under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The handgun was discovered during a lawful search incident to arrest, but police subsequently breached the appellant's s. 10(b) right to counsel and s. 8 privacy rights through warrantless entries into his apartment.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by failing to consider the breaches cumulatively.

Conducting a fresh s. 24(2) analysis, the Court concluded that while the breaches were serious, their impact was minimal as they occurred after the lawful discovery of the handgun, and society's interest favoured admission.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of trafficking a person under 18, procuring, advertising sexual services, and publishing child pornography, but acquitted of administering a noxious substance.

She appealed the convictions, arguing the verdicts were inconsistent.

The Crown appealed the conditional sentence of two years less a day, arguing it was demonstrably unfit for sexual offences against a child.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding sufficient evidence supported the verdicts despite the jury rejecting the complainant's drugging allegations.

The Court also dismissed the Crown's sentence appeal, holding that the trial judge properly applied the Friesen framework and that the offender's significant mental disabilities and history of exploitation constituted exceptional circumstances justifying a conditional sentence.

The procuring conviction was stayed on consent under the Kienapple principle.

The self-represented appellant appealed his summary conviction for simple assault against his former spouse.

He argued the trial judge erred in applying the W.(D.) test and subjected his evidence to a more stringent standard of scrutiny than the complainant's.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments and concluding the verdict was not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.

The plaintiff successfully sued the defendant for defamation and obtained an injunction prohibiting the defendant from communicating about him.

The defendant breached the injunction by communicating with a Member of Parliament, claiming it was an act of conscience, and was found in civil contempt.

The court sentenced the defendant to a 90-day conditional sentence with house arrest, followed by 18 months' probation and 200 hours of community service, finding that jail was not necessary.

The defendant was also ordered to pay substantial indemnity costs of $24,377.41.