Joseph Wilkinson

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, criminal harassment, and breach of recognizance, as well as his sentence.

The primary ground of appeal was that the trial judge erred in dismissing his section 11(b) Charter application for unreasonable delay.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the 20-month net delay was justified by the exceptional circumstance of case complexity, given the 10 complainants, multiple charges, and extensive pre-trial applications.

The Court also dismissed the conviction appeals based on alleged misapprehension of evidence and unreasonable verdict.

The sentence appeal, challenging a four-month term for breach of recognizance and a 20-year SOIRA registration order, was also dismissed.

The accused is charged with first degree murder and attempted murder following a firebombing that killed three people.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence of the accused's after-the-fact conduct, specifically an incident where the accused allegedly assaulted a witness in jail after calling him a 'rat'.

The court ruled the evidence admissible as circumstantial evidence relevant to identity and consciousness of guilt, but limited the Crown from introducing detailed evidence of the witness's injuries to avoid undue prejudice.

The Crown brought an application to admit evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct in a trial concerning a fatal fire.

The proposed evidence included the accused's history of drug dealing, controlling behaviour, and threats towards the deceased and others.

The court applied the test for prior discreditable conduct, weighing the probative value of each piece of evidence against its prejudicial effect.

The court ruled that some evidence, including certain text messages and interactions demonstrating animus and motive, was admissible, while other evidence, such as the accused's prior desire to use Molotov cocktails, was excluded as overly prejudicial.

The Crown sought to introduce a videotaped police statement of a deceased witness at the accused's trial for first degree murder under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found the statement met the necessity requirement but failed to establish threshold reliability, as it lacked procedural safeguards and substantive reliability due to inconsistencies and the witness's intoxication.

The statement was ruled inadmissible under the principled exception, though specific portions were admitted as pure narrative to provide context to the jury.

The applicant sought a stay of her 18-month driving prohibition pending the appeal of her convictions for dangerous driving, impaired driving, and refusing to comply with a breath demand.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay under s. 261(1) of the Criminal Code.

While the court found the appeal had arguable merit and the applicant would suffer hardship due to her self-employment, it concluded she failed to demonstrate she was not a danger to the public given her erratic driving on a busy highway.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

On a voir dire in a drug prosecution, the accused sought to exclude evidence obtained from a BlackBerry device seized by police, alleging a breach of s. 8 of the Charter.

The Crown argued the accused lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy and alternatively had abandoned the device when he removed the battery and threw it to the ground during a police approach.

The court held that while possession alone is insufficient, the accused established a reasonable expectation of privacy through possession, knowledge of the password, and prior use of the device.

The court further held that the act of removing the battery and throwing the device did not amount to abandonment but was more consistent with an attempt to preserve privacy.

The accused therefore retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in the device and its contents.

The applicant brought a motion for a preservation order under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 against thirteen properties alleged to be proceeds of unlawful activity related to drug trafficking and money laundering.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing there were no reasonable and probable grounds, that the applicant failed to make full and frank disclosure on the initial ex parte motion, and that continuation of the order was not in the interests of justice.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds to believe that eight of the properties were acquired with proceeds of crime due to unexplained funding gaps, but discharged the order for five properties where legitimate funding sources were demonstrated.

The court dismissed the non-disclosure arguments and found that continuing the preservation order for the eight properties was not clearly against the interests of justice.