Joel Hechter

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and unlawfully in a dwelling.

The Crown proceeded by summary conviction.

The defendant pleaded not guilty and raised the defence of non-insane automatism in the form of parasomnia (sexomnia), claiming he was asleep during the alleged assault.

The trial judge rejected the automatism defence, finding the defendant had not established a proper evidentiary foundation on a balance of probabilities.

The judge found the defendant's account of events was inconsistent and unreliable, and that his actions demonstrated conscious, purposeful decision-making inconsistent with parasomnia.

The defendant was found guilty of sexual assault but acquitted of the unlawfully in a dwelling charge due to reasonable doubt regarding specific intent.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault and mischief.

The Crown sought to introduce statements she made to police.

The accused argued the statements were involuntary due to an atmosphere of oppression and sought their exclusion under s. 24(2) of the Charter due to a conceded breach of her s. 10(b) right to counsel.

The court found the statements were voluntary.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the police failure to ensure the highly intoxicated accused understood her rights to counsel was a serious breach that significantly impacted her Charter-protected interests.

The statements were excluded under s. 24(2).

The accused applied in the nature of certiorari to quash a committal for trial on a charge of administering a noxious substance under the Criminal Code.

The evidence at the preliminary hearing showed that the complainant had independently formed an intention to commit suicide and asked the accused to bring drugs and prepare a syringe for that purpose.

The court considered whether preparing a syringe and facilitating drug ingestion could constitute "administering" within the meaning of the offence.

Relying on appellate authorities interpreting the term, the court held that administering requires causing the substance to enter the complainant’s system.

Merely providing drugs or preparing them for voluntary ingestion by the complainant did not amount to administering.

The committal on that count was therefore quashed.

The accused brought a pre‑trial Charter application seeking exclusion of drugs, a firearm, and other evidence obtained through a search warrant executed at his residence.

The court reviewed the telewarrant process and the sufficiency of the Information to Obtain (ITO), finding that the warrant relied largely on an unproven confidential informant with no reliability record and minimal corroboration.

The ITO contained misleading statements and significant omissions, including speculative allegations linking the accused to drug activity and failure to disclose surveillance showing no suspicious activity.

The court concluded that the issuing justice lacked sufficient reliable evidence to establish reasonable and probable grounds and quashed the warrant.

Considering additional Charter breaches, including excessive force during execution and violation of the right to counsel, the court excluded the seized drugs, firearm, and ammunition under s. 24(2).