Justice Susan Chapman

The accused was charged with possession of a loaded, prohibited handgun and breaches of court orders prohibiting weapon possession.

At trial, the defence brought a Charter application under section 24(2) seeking exclusion of the firearm and related evidence, alleging violations of section 10(b) (right to counsel without delay) and section 10(a) (right to be informed of reasons for arrest).

The Crown conceded a breach of section 10(b) with respect to a portion of the delay between arrest and access to counsel.

The court found serious and unjustified breaches of the right to counsel spanning approximately 4.5 hours, with particular concern regarding the deliberate failure of senior officers to record their interactions and decision-making.

The court excluded the evidence under section 24(2), finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

This is a preliminary ruling on the admissibility of documents in the possession of the accused in a sexual assault trial involving a young person.

The court considered whether text messages, social media communications, and photographs require an application under sections 278.92 and 276 of the Criminal Code before being adduced at trial.

The court examined the definition of "record" under section 278.1 and provided guidance on the notice requirements for bringing applications to admit sexual history evidence and private records.

The court concluded that certain communications and intimate materials require pre-trial vetting, while declining to make definitive determinations on the limited record before it.

The accused was charged with being an accessory after the fact to attempted murder, obstructing justice, and breaching a recognizance.

The Crown's case relied heavily on statements made by the accused to Detective Constable Pyke immediately following his arrest.

The trial judge found that the accused's Charter rights under s. 10(b) were violated when the officer elicited statements from him after he had invoked his right to counsel but before he had an opportunity to speak with counsel.

The statements were excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Additionally, the trial judge found insufficient evidence of the accused's knowledge of the specific offence for which the other person was wanted.

On the breach of recognizance charge, the trial judge found that the pellet gun found in the accused's residence did not meet the definition of a firearm or weapon as defined in the Criminal Code, and therefore did not constitute a breach of the recognizance as worded.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused was charged with four counts of possession, accessing, and making available child pornography on or about May 29, 2017, and possessing child pornography on November 16, 2017, contrary to sections 163.1(4.1), 163.1(4), and 163.1(3) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, based on forensic analysis of electronic devices seized during a search warrant execution.

The accused was found in possession of a Microsoft tablet containing extensive child pornography in readily accessible folders, along with personal documents and photographs.

Skype chats associated with accounts on the device showed transmission of child pornography on May 28, 2017.

The defence raised an alibi for May 28, 2017, supported by the accused's mother and aunt, claiming he was installing air conditioning units at his studio during the relevant time.

The court rejected the alibi evidence and the accused's denials, finding the Crown had proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the overwhelming circumstantial evidence.