John Flaherty

The applicant brought pre-trial applications seeking to exclude fingerprint evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter and to sever counts on the indictment.

The applicant argued that the RCMP's retention and the Toronto Police Service's access to his youth fingerprints after the expiration of the access period under the Youth Criminal Justice Act violated his section 8 Charter rights.

The court found that the retention and use of the youth records were not authorized by law, constituting a serious section 8 breach.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the fingerprint evidence.

The application to sever the firearms counts was dismissed, as the applicant failed to establish that severance was required in the interests of justice.

The accused, a bar security guard, was charged with sexually assaulting a highly intoxicated patron in the back alleyway of the establishment.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess the conflicting testimony of the complainant and the accused.

The court rejected the accused's exculpatory evidence as contradictory and unreliable, while finding the complainant's testimony credible and corroborated by circumstantial evidence and witness testimony.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

The accused brought an application for direction seeking a ruling that certain electronic communications exchanged between himself and the complainant over WhatsApp were not 'records' captured by s. 278.92 of the Criminal Code.

The communications involved social planning and discussions about drug use.

The court held that the communications did not contain personal information for which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the totality of the circumstances.

Therefore, the communications did not fall within the definition of 'record' under s. 278.1 and could be adduced at trial without a s. 278.92 hearing.

The accused, charged with sexual assault and administering a noxious substance, brought an application under s. 276(2) and s. 278.92 of the Criminal Code to introduce photographs and WhatsApp messages depicting prior sexual activity with the complainant.

The accused sought to use this evidence to impeach the complainant's credibility, as she had testified at the preliminary inquiry that they were 'just friends'.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the evidence was relevant, its probative value was low due to ambiguity in the messages, and its prejudicial effect substantially outweighed its probative value.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, aggravated assault, and obstructing justice arising from a three-way sexual encounter.

The Crown alleged the accused forced non-consensual sex, failed to disclose his HIV status, and offered a bribe to the complainant.

The court found the sexual encounter was consensual and the bribery allegations were fabricated.

Applying the Mabior framework, the court held that the accused's failure to disclose his HIV status did not vitiate consent because he used a condom and had an undetectably low viral load at the time, meaning there was no realistic possibility of transmission.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.