J. Vlacic

The accused was stopped during a Festive R.I.D.E. campaign.

Police smelled raw cannabis and searched the vehicle, finding a loaded handgun.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude the firearm and statements made to police, alleging breaches of his ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) rights.

The court found that the search based solely on the smell of raw cannabis was unreasonable, leading to arbitrary detention and a breach of the right to counsel.

However, applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the evidence should not be excluded, as the admission of the reliable evidence of a serious gun crime would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The statements were also found to be voluntary and admissible.

The offenders were found guilty by a jury of exercising control, direction, or influence over the movements of two complainants who provided sexual services, and of receiving a financial benefit from those activities.

The court found the offenders exploited the young, vulnerable complainants for profit, with Mr. Deidun providing drugs and transportation, and Ms. Bernard booking hotel rooms.

After considering the Tang/Miller factors, the parity principle, pre-sentence custody, and Downes credit for restrictive bail conditions, the court sentenced Mr. Deidun to a net term of 30 months less 10 days, and Ms. Bernard to a net term of 11 months and 15 days.

The accused, charged with murder, brought a pre-trial application to adduce evidence of the deceased victim's propensity for violence when intoxicated to support claims of self-defence and provocation.

The Crown conceded the evidence was admissible but sought to lead reply evidence of the accused's dated criminal record for violent offences.

The court held that the accused could lead the evidence.

If the accused limited the evidence to the period of May to August 2019, the Crown could not lead reply evidence of the accused's criminal record.

However, if the accused led evidence of the victim's propensity predating May 2019, the Crown would be permitted to lead reply evidence of the accused's record, provided the underlying facts of the convictions were also adduced to prevent undue prejudice.

The accused, charged with murder, brought a pre-trial application under the O'Connor framework for the production of a key Crown witness's third-party psychiatric records.

The witness, who had a history of schizophrenia, had given a statement to police about a conversation with the accused shortly after the murder.

The court dismissed the application at the first stage, finding the records were not 'likely relevant'.

The court held that the request was overbroad and rested on impermissible stereotypes about mental illness, as there was no case-specific evidence that the witness's condition impaired her ability to observe, retain, or recount the events at the material times.

The Crown applied under section 521 of the Criminal Code to reverse a bail review decision that released the accused on a surety bail with conditions.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and later with witness intimidation and kidnapping after the complainant was found chained to a bed.

The original bail judge detained the accused on secondary and tertiary grounds, finding him un-releasable regardless of the bail plan.

The reviewing judge subsequently released the accused, finding a material change in circumstances based on a new supervision plan.

The Superior Court held that the reviewing judge erred in law because the original detention was not based on an inadequate plan, but on the accused's ungovernability.

The release order was set aside and the detention order was reinstated.

The accused was charged with multiple firearms and threat-related offences after confronting tenants in his home with what appeared to be a handgun.

The central issue at trial was whether the Crown could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the unrecovered item was a real firearm rather than an imitation, relying on video evidence and witness testimony.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, particularly witness descriptions of the bullets, proved the item was a real firearm.

The accused was found guilty of possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose, pointing a firearm at one tenant, uttering a death threat to that tenant, possessing a firearm while prohibited, and possessing a loaded firearm without a licence, but acquitted of the remaining charges.

The accused, charged with sexual assault and human trafficking offences, sought disclosure of police occurrence reports and statements related to four prior incidents the Crown intended to introduce as similar-fact evidence.

The Crown argued the materials were 'records' under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code, requiring the accused to bring a production application under s. 278.3.

The court held that because the Crown intended to use the evidence as part of its case, it was constitutionally obligated under Stinchcombe to disclose the materials without requiring a production application.