J. Rabinovitch

Trial on circumstantial evidence for possession of a loaded handgun found beneath the accused's vehicle.

A police officer observed the accused smoking cannabis in a parked car at a motel parking lot, drove past, and saw the accused exit and kneel beside the driver's door before attempting to walk away.

A loaded handgun was subsequently discovered under the vehicle within arm's reach of the driver's door.

No fingerprints attributable to the accused were found and DNA on the firearm belonged to an unknown male.

The court applied the Villaroman framework for circumstantial evidence, rejected defence arguments that the firearm could have been left by someone else, and found the only reasonable inference was that the accused possessed and discarded the firearm upon spotting the officer.

The accused was convicted of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown and defence agreed on a joint submission of four years' imprisonment but disagreed on whether the accused should receive pre-sentence custody credit for time spent in custody on separate, outstanding charges in another jurisdiction.

The court accepted the joint submission of four years but declined to grant credit for the time served on the outstanding charges, holding that such credit should be determined when those specific charges are resolved.

The accused was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

On a blended voir dire, the accused alleged that his warrantless arrest and subsequent search violated his rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter, seeking exclusion of the heroin under s. 24(2).

The court found that the arresting officer had both subjective and objective reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused based on surveillance observations of a suspected drug transaction.

Consequently, there were no Charter violations.

The court further held that even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) as the officer acted in good faith and the evidence was reliable and essential.

The appellant appealed convictions for impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml.

At trial, the accused’s statements to police were ruled inadmissible due to Charter breaches, yet the trial judge relied on those statements and other improper inferences to conclude the accused was the driver.

On appeal, the Crown conceded error on the impaired driving conviction.

The court held the trial judge materially erred by relying on inadmissible evidence and by drawing unreasonable inferences from equivocal circumstantial evidence regarding the identity of the driver.

The convictions were therefore unreasonable and unsupported by sufficient admissible evidence.

The accused was charged with indecent assault contrary to s. 156 of the Criminal Code for alleged sexual acts against a child occurring between 1973 and 1976.

The complainant testified that, when he was between five and seven years old, the accused forced him to perform oral sex on several occasions in the accused’s home.

The accused denied the allegations.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, noting the significant passage of time and inconsistencies in the complainant’s recollection, including concerns about opportunity and inaccuracies regarding physical details.

The court concluded that, although it could not fully accept the accused’s denial, the Crown failed to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The offender was convicted of impaired driving causing bodily harm and 'over 80' after a motor vehicle collision that resulted in serious, permanent injuries to his passenger.

The offender absconded prior to the sentencing hearing and was sentenced in absentia.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, sentencing the offender to 18 months' imprisonment, a 10-year driving prohibition, and a DNA order, while staying the 'over 80' charge.