John C. Healy

The accused was charged with attempted murder and related firearms offences following a shooting.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, as the accused was arrested shortly after the shooting in possession of the firearm used.

The court found the evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the shooter or a party to the offence.

However, the court found the accused knowingly assisted the shooter by fleeing with the weapon.

The court amended the indictment to conform to the evidence and convicted the accused of being an accessory after the fact to discharging a firearm with intent to wound.

In a trial for attempted murder and firearms offences, the Crown sought to introduce expert opinion evidence from a forensic firearms examiner to prove that spent shell casings found at the crime scene were fired by a handgun recovered near the accused.

The defence challenged the reliability of the expert's methodology, relying on a prior decision that rejected similar evidence.

The court admitted the expert evidence, finding the scientific foundation valid, the methodology reliable, and noting that the defence failed to put its critical literature to the expert during cross-examination.

The accused was charged with multiple firearms offences following a shooting and subsequent police pursuit.

At trial, the defence brought several Charter applications alleging excessive use of force by the Emergency Task Force during the arrest, an unlawful roadside strip search, excessive force during transport, and a delay in providing rights to counsel.

The court dismissed all applications, finding that the force used was necessary and reasonable given the accused's resistance and the dangerous circumstances.

The court also held that the roadside search was a lawful pat-down, not a strip search, and that the brief delay in advising the accused of his rights was justified by exigent circumstances including officer safety and the need for immediate medical assessment.

A minor breach of s. 10(b) occurred when officers asked questions before rights were given, but no evidence was excluded under s. 24(2).

The accused was charged with pointing a firearm at a police officer and various firearm possession offences following a foot pursuit.

The court admitted the hearsay statement of an unknown dog-walker who pointed out the fleeing suspect under the spontaneous utterance exception.

The court found the officer's identification of the accused and observation of the firearm to be reliable.

The accused was found guilty of pointing a firearm, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and breaching a prohibition order and recognizance.

The accused was charged with firearms and drug offences following a search warrant execution.

The trial proceeded by agreed statement of facts with no witnesses called.

However, material discrepancies emerged between the agreed statement and the defence's anticipated evidence regarding the location of a firearm, where the accused slept, and how often he remained at the premises.

The defence sought to call evidence to clarify or contradict the agreed statement.

The court found irreconcilable conflicts between the agreed statement and the defence's new position, determined that defence counsel could not continue due to conflicts of interest, and declared a mistrial.