John N. Pepper

Terry Hemington brought a Charter application challenging the validity of a production order and subsequent search warrants (residence, cell phone, and Dropbox) obtained by police in an investigation into child pornography charges.

Hemington argued that the initial Information to Obtain (ITO) for the production order lacked sufficient grounds, leading to a violation of his Section 8 Charter rights.

The court reviewed the ITOs, applying principles of judicial review for search warrants, including the 'credibly-based probability' standard and the duty of full, frank, and fair disclosure.

The court found that despite some deficiencies in the drafting of the ITO, the issuing judicial officer had reasonable grounds to believe an offence had been committed, based on the reported image, the officer's expertise, and the 'Lolita' reference.

Consequently, the production order and subsequent warrants were deemed valid, and Hemington's Charter application was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of theft over $5,000, break and enter, two counts of possession of property for the purpose of trafficking, and one count of possession of property obtained by crime.

He appealed his convictions on grounds that the trial judge failed to properly apply the W.(D.) test, applied stricter scrutiny to the defence case, provided insufficient reasons, and misapprehended evidence.

The appellant also argued that two convictions should be stayed under Kienapple as included offences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed most grounds of appeal but allowed the appeal in part, staying two convictions as included offences.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 14(22) of the Family Law Rules to strike multiple paragraphs from the respondent’s Amended Answer in ongoing parenting litigation concerning the parties’ child.

The challenged pleadings alleged details about the parties’ relationship, the applicant’s family finances, and prior litigation involving the respondent.

The court held that pleadings must contain material facts relevant to the issues and must not include inflammatory allegations, collateral matters, or evidence that could delay or prejudice a fair trial.

Several paragraphs were struck as irrelevant, prejudicial, or consisting of evidence rather than material facts, while some paragraphs were permitted to remain.

The respondent was granted leave to amend portions of the pleading consistent with the court’s guidance.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg/100 ml following a traffic stop in Arnprior, Ontario on March 7, 2012.

The Crown relied on breath test results taken outside the two-hour window, requiring expert evidence from the Centre of Forensic Science to establish the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving.

The key issue was whether the accused engaged in bolus drinking (consumption of large quantities of alcohol immediately before driving) within fifteen minutes of being stopped.

The trial judge rejected the defence witness's testimony regarding shots of tequila consumed just before departure, finding her evidence fabricated and unreliable.

The court applied the common sense inference that normal people do not consume large quantities of alcohol immediately before driving and found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that no bolus drinking occurred.

The accused was convicted of Over 80 and the Impaired charge was stayed.