Justin Yuen

The applicant brought pre-trial applications seeking to exclude fingerprint evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter and to sever counts on the indictment.

The applicant argued that the RCMP's retention and the Toronto Police Service's access to his youth fingerprints after the expiration of the access period under the Youth Criminal Justice Act violated his section 8 Charter rights.

The court found that the retention and use of the youth records were not authorized by law, constituting a serious section 8 breach.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the fingerprint evidence.

The application to sever the firearms counts was dismissed, as the applicant failed to establish that severance was required in the interests of justice.

The accused was charged with possession of a fentanyl/carfentanil mixture for the purpose of trafficking after police found the drugs in a locked safe in his bedroom closet.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence to prove knowledge and control.

A defence witness testified that he shared the bedroom, had exclusive access to the safe, and that the drugs were his alone.

The court found the defence witness's evidence, while problematic, raised a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

The defendant pleaded guilty to uttering a death threat, possessing a prohibited device, and possessing a loaded restricted firearm following a road rage incident where he brandished a handgun.

At the time, the defendant was on bail for drug and weapons charges in another province.

The court accepted a joint submission for a three-year global sentence.

The court awarded 166 days of credit for pre-trial custody, harsh pandemic conditions, and strict bail terms, resulting in a net sentence of 2 years and 178 days.

During a trial for first-degree murder, the Crown sought to leave forcible confinement murder under s. 231(5)(e) of the Criminal Code with the jury as a route to liability.

The accused admitted to shooting the victim but claimed it was an accident.

The court applied the air of reality test and found that, based on the primary facts and circumstantial evidence, a properly instructed jury could reasonably infer that the accused forcibly confined the victim by moving him from the front seat to the back seat of his car at gunpoint before shooting him.

The court ruled that this route of liability would be left with the jury.

The accused was arrested for drug trafficking and two cell phones were seized from his person incident to arrest.

The police obtained a search warrant for his residence and vehicle, which included authorization to search cell phones found in those locations.

Months later, police extracted and searched the data from the cell phones seized from the accused's person, mistakenly believing the warrant authorized it.

The court found the warrantless search violated the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded the police conduct was careless and negligent, the impact on the accused's privacy was significant, and the evidence must be excluded under s. 24(2).