Juliana Martel

CBC/Radio-Canada appealed a ruling that required the production of journalistic records related to a key Crown witness (X.X.) in a sexual assault case.

The trial judge inferred that X.X. was likely an unnamed journalistic source and, applying section 39.1 of the Canada Evidence Act, ordered the records' production for a pre-trial third-party records application.

The appeal court upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in the inference or the application of the statutory test for overriding journalistic source privilege.

The court emphasized deference to the trial judge's discretion and dismissed the appeal.

A sealing order for appeal materials was granted, but a non-communication order was denied.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of five hearsay statements made by the complainant in a criminal trial for aggravated sexual assault and assault.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine if the statements were admissible under the common law res gestae exception or the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The judge admitted two statements under res gestae, and partially admitted a third under the principled exception (a gesture and statement about location, but not the assertion of assault).

The remaining two statements were deemed inadmissible due to a lack of substantive reliability or because the police notes did not constitute a "statement" of the declarant.

The offender was found guilty of sexual assault after raping the victim at a university party while she was intoxicated.

The court considered the offender's prior criminal record, lack of remorse, and the severe impact on the victim.

The offender was sentenced to 3 years and 10 months in custody, along with a DNA order, a 20-year SOIRA order, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The accused, Steven Redden-Cox, was sentenced for one count of sexual assault under section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The offence involved forced intercourse and fellatio on a vulnerable, mildly intoxicated 18-year-old complainant, following initial consensual intimate touching.

The court characterized the offence as "predatory" and falling within the "date rape" category, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

Despite the accused's expression of regret and potential for rehabilitation, the court imposed a sentence of two years in penitentiary, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA order, a 20-year SOIRA order, and a no-contact order with the complainant.

Derek Robertson was found guilty of fraud against two couples, the Demers and Langfords, for failing to complete architectural drawings for new homes and misusing funds intended for third-party fees.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the victims' age and the financial and emotional impact, and mitigating factors, such as Robertson's lack of criminal record, significant mental health issues (pervasive depression), and the unsophisticated nature of the fraud.

The Crown sought 6-9 months imprisonment, while the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 24 months probation and restitution orders of $5,000 each to Mr. Demers and Mr. Langford, emphasizing rehabilitation, the principle of restraint against jail, and the offender's limited means and mental health challenges.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and threatening death.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault, accepting the complainant's testimony of non-consensual intercourse and forceful restraint, supported by physical evidence.

The court found the accused not guilty of uttering a death threat, as the alleged statement lacked context and credibility.

The offender was convicted by a jury of ten counts of weapons trafficking, ten counts of making a false report, and one count of public mischief.

He acted as a straw purchaser, buying ten handguns for his drug dealer in exchange for cocaine, and later falsely reported them stolen.

The Crown sought 5-6 years imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court sentenced the offender to 4 years imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for weapons trafficking, while considering his lack of prior record and rehabilitation efforts as mitigating factors.

Three defendants were charged with twelve offences arising from a shooting incident at a strip mall parking lot in Ottawa on September 1, 2018.

The Crown alleged that Haji Ragab was the shooter, Paraparan was the driver of the getaway vehicle, and Hope was a passenger.

All three were charged with various firearm-related offences.

The trial judge found that while the Crown proved the three defendants were in the vehicle at the scene, it failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Haji Ragab was the shooter or that Paraparan was the driver.

Critically, the Crown also failed to prove that any defendant possessed the firearm, as the weapon was never recovered and the Crown could not establish that the item used was a firearm as defined by the Criminal Code.

All charges were dismissed against all defendants.

The accused brought a motion to quash a search warrant authorizing the search of his vehicle following an armed robbery investigation, arguing the supporting information to obtain the warrant contained misleading and inaccurate statements regarding the presence of a similar vehicle at the crime scene.

The court reviewed the information to obtain under the principles governing warrant review and found that certain statements regarding a red van and a backpack were misleading and should be excised.

However, even after removing those statements, sufficient remaining facts supported reasonable and probable grounds to believe the accused was one of the robbers and that evidence of the offence could be located in his vehicle.

The issuing justice could therefore reasonably conclude the statutory preconditions for the warrant were met.

The court held the search was lawful and declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.