J. Goldlist

The Crown brought a pretrial application to admit non-expert recognition evidence from the father and stepmother of one of the accused, who viewed video surveillance of the suspects.

The defence argued the evidence was inadmissible as the witnesses did not definitively identify the accused and their evidence was tainted by police.

The court held that the witnesses' long knowledge of the accused and their observations regarding clothing and physical characteristics were relevant to identification, and the evidence was admissible, with its weight to be determined by the jury.

The Crown applied to remove defence counsel for a young person charged with second degree murder, alleging a conflict of interest because counsel also represented a Crown witness on unrelated charges.

The witness had given a confusing police statement suggesting the accused might be involved, but later testified at the preliminary hearing that he had no direct communication with the accused.

Both the accused and the witness provided informed waivers consenting to the representation.

The court dismissed the application, finding no realistic risk of adversity in interest and noting that independent counsel could cross-examine the witness if necessary.

The applicant, a passenger in a vehicle stopped for traffic violations, sought to exclude evidence of cocaine, fentanyl, and cash found on his person, alleging violations of his ss. 8, 9, and 10 Charter rights.

The police officer smelled marijuana, requested identification, discovered an outstanding warrant for the applicant, and arrested him.

Subsequent searches at the roadside and police station revealed the drugs.

The court found the initial detention and request for identification were reasonable, the strip searches were justified by exigent circumstances and officer safety, and the delays in facilitating the right to counsel were practically necessary.

The motion to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) was dismissed.

The accused brought an application to adjourn his joint jury trial for drug importation, scheduled to commence in less than three weeks, in order to retain counsel of choice.

The accused had previously discharged counsel and had been warned multiple times that the trial would proceed with or without counsel.

The court dismissed the adjournment application, finding that the accused had not acted diligently or in a bona fide manner to retain available counsel, and that the application was a deliberate attempt to manipulate the system to achieve a de facto severance from his co-accused.

The applicant, charged with first degree murder, applied for a change of venue under s. 599(1) of the Criminal Code, arguing that pervasive pre-trial publicity and community hostility in Brantford made a fair trial impossible.

The court reviewed the media coverage, social media comments, and community attendance at court appearances, finding that the publicity was not overwhelmingly hostile or prejudicial.

The court concluded that procedural safeguards, including an expanded challenge for cause, would adequately protect the applicant's right to a fair trial.

The application for a change of venue was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with cocaine trafficking offences, brought a Garofoli application seeking to quash search warrants for two residences and exclude the seized evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found sufficient grounds for the warrant at the applicant's current residence, but insufficient grounds for his former residence due to stale information, resulting in a s. 8 Charter breach.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded the s. 8 breach was at the less serious end of the spectrum and the reliable evidence was crucial to the prosecution of serious offences, thus admitting the evidence and dismissing the application.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, brought a pretrial application to exclude his formal statement to police, alleging it was involuntary and obtained in violation of his rights under ss. 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found the statement was voluntary, as the police interrogation techniques did not overbear the applicant's will.

However, the court found that the police breached ss. 10(a) and 10(b) by failing to inform the applicant of the deceased's name or specific details of the murder charge, which prevented him from meaningfully instructing counsel.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that admitting the statement would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and excluded the evidence.

During a trial for first-degree murder, the accused requested that the partial defence of provocation be left with the jury.

The accused testified that the victim made threatening comments before the accused killed him.

The trial judge refused the request, finding no air of reality to the objective element of the defence.

The court held that the victim's comments, made while bound and confined by the accused, would not cause an ordinary person to lose the power of self-control.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, threatening death, unlawful confinement, and mischief over $5,000 following a prolonged attack on his former intimate partner in her home.

The court accepted a joint submission, sentencing the accused to two years in the penitentiary in addition to three years and 64 days of pre-sentence custody credit, followed by three years of probation.

The offender was convicted of manslaughter following the stabbing death of his friend during a physical altercation over a television.

The court found that the offender did not intend to cause death but used excessive force in self-defence by arming himself with a knife.

After weighing aggravating factors, including the use of a weapon and fleeing the scene, against mitigating factors such as his youth, employment history, and strict bail conditions, the court imposed a sentence of 5 years.

With credit for pre-sentence custody and bail conditions, the net sentence was 3 years and 10 months.

The offender pleaded guilty to importing 2.2 kg of cocaine and escaping lawful custody.

He acted as a courier, body-packing the drugs from Aruba.

The court considered the low purity of the cocaine (41%) and the offender's prior criminal record.

The court applied the Cunningham range, balancing the mitigating factor of low purity against the aggravating factor of his prior record.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 6 years' imprisonment, reduced to 4 years and 10 months after applying a 1.5:1 credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused was charged with firearms and drug offences after police responded to a report of a man pointing a handgun.

An officer spotted the accused, who matched the description, running near the scene.

After a foot pursuit and struggle, the accused was arrested and searched, revealing cocaine, a digital scale, and cash.

The accused applied to exclude the evidence and his subsequent statements under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging breaches of his s. 8 and s. 9 rights.

The court dismissed the application, finding the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and search the accused incident to arrest.

Alternatively, the court held the evidence would be admissible under the Grant framework even if a breach had occurred.

The accused brought a Khelawon application seeking to admit hearsay evidence that, prior to execution of a search warrant, an officer told other officers that there was possibly a second armed male at the premises.

The officer who allegedly made the statement was seriously ill and unavailable to testify.

The defence argued the statement was necessary and reliable because it appeared in multiple officers’ notes and supported the theory that another person possessed the firearm found during the search.

The court held the statement did not meet the principled hearsay exception because reliability was not established and necessity was lacking where direct evidence from surveillance officers was available.

The application to admit the hearsay statement for the truth of its contents was denied.