Jessica Sickinger

The accused, Antonio Ricciardi, brought a pre-trial application challenging the warrantless seizure of his sweatshirt by police during a court appearance.

The Crown argued the seizure was authorized under s. 489(2) of the Criminal Code as a simple seizure of evidence in plain view.

The court, applying a broad and purposive interpretation of Charter s. 8 privacy rights, held that the non-consensual removal of clothing from a person constitutes a "search and seizure," not merely a "seizure." Since s. 489(2) only authorizes a seizure and not a search, the police action fell outside its scope and violated the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

The applicant, Gary Allen, sought to exclude a "chat log" as evidence in his trial for luring and making sexually explicit material available.

He argued that the "chat log" was obtained in violation of his section 8 Charter rights (unreasonable search and seizure), constituted participant surveillance requiring prior judicial authorization under section 184.2 of the Criminal Code, and was inadmissible under the best evidence rule.

The court found that Allen had no subjective or objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the online communications, as he advertised for sexual encounters with strangers on Craigslist and made no requests for confidentiality.

Consequently, section 8 of the Charter was not engaged, and no judicial authorization for interception was required.

The court further found the "chat log" admissible under the best evidence rule, explaining that the concept of an "original" is not readily applicable to electronic documents and that the integrity of the compilation was sufficiently established by police testimony.

The application was dismissed, and the "chat log" was deemed admissible.

The applicant, Gary Phillip Allen, challenged the constitutionality of subsections 171.1(3)-(4) and 172.1(3)-(4) of the Criminal Code, which pertain to internet luring and making explicit material available to a child.

The applicant argued these provisions violated sections 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by creating a reverse onus and reducing the constitutionally required mens rea.

The court dismissed the application, finding the impugned provisions constitutionally valid.

The court held that these provisions impose an evidential burden, not a persuasive one, and are akin to a due diligence inquiry, consistent with prior appellate and Supreme Court jurisprudence on similar "reasonable steps" provisions.

The applicant, an 80-year-old man charged with sexual assault, sought a stay of proceedings due to a heart condition, arguing that continued prosecution violated his Charter rights under ss. 7 and 11(d) and constituted an abuse of process.

The court reviewed medical evidence, which indicated that while the applicant had serious health issues, his condition had stabilized, and he was physically able to attend trial with appropriate accommodations.

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a substantial risk to his health or that the trial process would seriously imperil it.

Applying the tests from R. v. Hillier, R. v. Magomadova, and R. v. Babos, the court concluded that this was not one of the "clearest of cases" warranting a stay, especially considering the public interest in adjudicating serious offences involving child harm.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The appellant sought leave to appeal convictions and sentence arising from allegations that he spat blood on correctional officers during a prison disturbance and uttered a death threat to one officer.

The appeal judge held that the trial judge failed to properly apply the principles from W.D. regarding the assessment of an accused’s evidence and provided inadequate reasons linking accepted facts to the essential elements of assault.

In particular, the reasons did not address whether the spitting was intentional or explain the reliability of the complainants’ evidence in chaotic circumstances.

The conviction for uttering a threat was upheld, but the assault convictions were set aside due to insufficient reasons and improper credibility analysis.

A new trial was ordered on the assault counts.

The accused was charged with domestic assault.

He brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings, arguing that police conduct during his arrest violated sections 7, 9, and 12 of the Charter.

The accused alleged that police used excessive force when they tackled him to the ground, resulting in a broken cheekbone and broken ribs.

He also challenged the lawfulness of police entry into his apartment and raised concerns about being denied access to a washroom while in custody.

The court found that while the police use of force was excessive and violated section 7 of the Charter, a stay of proceedings was not the appropriate remedy.

The court determined that the officer acted in good faith in a volatile situation, and that sentencing principles would be flexible enough to address the circumstances of the arrest.