Peter Bawden

The applicant, charged with two counts of murder, brought a Charter motion to exclude evidence extracted from an iPhone seized upon his arrest.

The applicant argued that the search warrant was overly broad, the police ignored its limitations, the affiant misled the issuing justice, and the police failed to file reports to a justice and lost a USB key containing the extracted data.

The court found that the applicant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the stolen phone and that the failure to file reports and the loss of the USB key violated his s. 8 Charter rights.

However, applying the Grant test, the court concluded that the evidence was highly reliable and crucial to the Crown's case, and its admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The applicants, charged with fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud in relation to a bid-rigging scheme, brought an application for the disclosure or third-party production of investigative files held by counsel for cooperating witnesses.

The cooperating witnesses had received immunity or leniency under the Competition Bureau's programs.

The applicants argued that the witnesses' lawyers acted as state agents when interviewing their clients and that solicitor-client privilege over those interview notes was waived.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the lawyers were not acting as state agents, the communications remained protected by solicitor-client privilege, and the privilege was never waived.

Consequently, the materials were not within the Crown's control for Stinchcombe disclosure and could not be produced as third-party records.

The accused, Tanade Mohamed, shot and killed two men in a nightclub parking lot following a minor altercation.

He claimed self-defence and provocation for the first victim, and accident for the second.

The co-accused, Abdirisaq Ali, drove the getaway vehicle and was charged as a party to the offences.

The court rejected Mohamed's claims of self-defence and provocation, finding him guilty of second-degree murder for the first victim.

However, the court found a reasonable doubt regarding his intent to kill the second victim, resulting in a manslaughter conviction.

The co-accused was acquitted of all charges, as the court found a reasonable doubt regarding his prior knowledge of the shooter's intentions.

The applicant was arrested for possession of a Schedule I substance after a drug transaction was observed.

A search of his vehicle revealed cocaine and fentanyl.

At the police station, the applicant was strip searched before being given the opportunity to consult with counsel.

The applicant brought a Charter application to exclude the drugs found in his car, alleging breaches of his s. 8 and s. 10(b) rights.

The court found no s. 8 breach, as there were reasonable grounds for the strip search.

The court found a s. 10(b) breach because the police failed to allow the applicant to consult with counsel before the strip search.

However, the court concluded that the drugs were not obtained in a manner that breached s. 10(b), and even if they were, the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The Crown applied to admit a recanting witness's prior videotaped statement to police for the truth of its contents under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The witness, who had been arrested for the same drug trafficking offences as the accused but released without charges, refused to adopt her statement during cross-examination under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding the statement lacked threshold reliability due to the absence of procedural safeguards, such as an oath, warning, or opportunity to consult counsel.

The court also held that the substantive reliability of the statement, though corroborated by police observations, did not meet the high standard set out in Bradshaw.

Alternatively, the court would have excluded the statement under its residual discretion.

The applicant sought to assess 30 accounts rendered by the respondent law firm, alleging incompetence and malfeasance.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent sought costs of $31,877.30.

The court found the respondent's claimed hourly rate and preparation time reasonable given the complexity of the facts and the gravity of the allegations.

After a minor deduction for an issue on which the applicant was successful, the court ordered the applicant to pay costs of $30,458.38 forthwith.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion for summary judgment seeking vacant possession of the defendant's unit to enforce a condominium lien.

The lien arose after the defendant's tenant unsuccessfully sued the corporation, resulting in costs awards and legal fees being added to the unit's common expenses pursuant to the Condominium Act and the corporation's by-laws.

The defendant, an elderly self-represented woman, argued she was not properly served and should not be responsible for her tenant's unauthorized actions.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the corporation properly served the defendant at her address for service and strictly complied with the Condominium Act.

The court held that the legislation mandates adding such costs to the common expenses to protect other unit owners, and granted the corporation possession of the unit to sell it and recover the outstanding arrears.

The applicant commercial tenant sought a permanent injunction and relief from forfeiture after being locked out by the respondent landlord.

The landlord had terminated the lease due to the tenant's failure to remedy a persistent mould issue that was affecting an adjacent unit.

The court found that the tenant had not acted diligently or in good faith to repair the issue despite numerous opportunities.

The court dismissed the application for an injunction, finding the tenant barely established a serious issue to be tried, failed to show irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the landlord.

The court also denied relief from forfeiture due to the tenant's poor conduct and failure to come to court with clean hands.

The applicant sought to assess 30 accounts rendered by his former law firm in a family law matter, alleging the firm failed to prepare for trial and demanded an exorbitant additional retainer.

The court found that the applicant, a sophisticated client, had deliberately obstructed trial preparation and orchestrated the breakdown of the solicitor-client relationship to obtain an adjournment.

The court held that no special circumstances existed to justify assessing the accounts and dismissed the application.

The applicant's motion for a sealing order was partially granted to redact identifying information about his children, but otherwise dismissed as the information was already public and solicitor-client privilege was waived by the nature of the allegations.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and one count of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The offences occurred while the accused was on bail and seeking treatment for his own addiction.

The Crown sought a 7-year sentence, while the defence sought a 3-year sentence, arguing for a reduction based on the accused's addiction and his surrender of a firearm to police.

The court found that the accused was a mid-level trafficker selling for profit, not merely an addict-trafficker.

The court imposed a global sentence of 7 years, reduced by 44 months for pre-trial custody and 4 months for surrendering the firearm, resulting in a remaining sentence of 3 years imprisonment.

The accused was charged with human trafficking, sexual assault, assault, and drug trafficking offences involving a 16-year-old complainant and her friends.

The Crown alleged the accused groomed the complainant to become her pimp.

The court found the evidence insufficient to prove the accused exercised control or direction over the complainant's movements for the purpose of exploitation, resulting in acquittals on the human trafficking and related prostitution charges.

However, the court found the accused guilty of sexual assault, assault, trafficking in cocaine, and trafficking in a substance held out to be cocaine.