Ken R. Lockhart

The accused brought a Charter motion to exclude evidence, including a loaded restricted firearm, found during a police investigation at an apartment building.

The police attended the building after receiving an anonymous tip about a gun.

The court found that the police breached the accused's section 8, 9, and 10(b) rights during his initial detention and search, and breached his section 8 rights by entering his apartment without a warrant.

However, the court held that neither accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common hallway where the firearm was discovered inside a plant cylinder.

The court also upheld the validity of a subsequent search warrant for the apartment.

As a result, the firearm and evidence found during the warranted search were ruled admissible.

The accused brought a third party records application under the Criminal Code seeking school, child protection, and police records relating both to the complainant’s allegations against him and later allegations against the complainant’s step-father.

The court held that credibility and reliability were central trial issues and that the timing, content, and surrounding circumstances of the later allegations provided a concrete factual basis for likely relevance, rather than impermissible speculation or a fishing expedition.

Applying the statutory two-stage production regime and the balancing approach from Mills, the court found the records necessary to permit full answer and defence notwithstanding the complainant’s significant privacy interests.

Disclosure to the defence was ordered, subject to redactions, removal of irrelevant material, and strict restrictions on copying, dissemination, and use.

Following convictions for first degree murder committed when the offenders were young persons, the Crown applied for adult sentences under s. 72 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court assessed the seriousness of the offence, the personal circumstances and criminal histories of the young persons, and broader societal interests including accountability and public protection.

The murder was a planned execution-style killing involving coordinated roles by each offender and subsequent efforts to conceal involvement.

Although two offenders were eligible for Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision orders, the court concluded that youth sentences would not provide sufficient accountability or protection of the public.

Adult sentences were therefore imposed on all three young persons.

Four young persons were charged with the first-degree murder of a sixteen-year-old victim who was shot and killed in a residential building staircase.

The Crown alleged that the accused lured the victim into the staircase as part of a planned and deliberate execution, relying heavily on surveillance video and extensive text message evidence containing gang slang.

The court found three of the accused guilty as joint principals or aiders, concluding they orchestrated and executed the plan.

The fourth accused was found not guilty, as the evidence raised suspicions but failed to prove his involvement beyond a reasonable doubt.

The young person applicant, charged with first degree murder alongside three co-accused, applied for a directed verdict on the basis of insufficient evidence.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including text messages, video surveillance, and the applicant's flight from the scene, to establish the applicant's participation in a planned and deliberate murder.

The court dismissed the application, finding that there was sufficient evidence upon which a properly instructed jury, acting reasonably, could return a verdict of guilty.

The accused brought an evidentiary motion in a criminal trial concerning whether statements allegedly acknowledging a nickname could be admitted as evidence of adoption.

A police officer testified that on several occasions the accused acknowledged being known by the nickname “Governor,” though the evidence was imprecise and unsupported by contemporaneous notes.

The court held that the alleged acknowledgements provided an evidential basis upon which a jury could determine whether the accused adopted the nickname, and the lack of specificity affected weight rather than admissibility.

The court also ruled that if the Crown elicited evidence of the alleged adoption, the defence would be permitted to cross‑examine on a prior denial of the nickname to avoid presenting an incomplete picture to the jury.

The accused brought a motion to exclude evidence of an out-of-court identification arising from a 1996 police photo lineup.

The original photo array had been lost and could not be reconstructed, and the identification procedure had been conducted in a manner inconsistent with later Sophonow inquiry recommendations, including the absence of audio or video recording, use of an investigating officer who knew the suspect, and simultaneous presentation of photographs.

The court held that the procedure was fundamentally flawed and that the loss of the photo array created significant prejudice to the defence’s ability to challenge the identification.

Given the inability to assess the fairness of the lineup and the resulting prejudice, the court excluded the evidence of the photo identification.

The ruling noted that the issue could be revisited depending on developments at trial.

The accused brought an application to exclude statements made to police in Georgia following his arrest on a Canadian warrant for attempted murder and firearms offences.

The defence argued the statements were involuntary and contrary to the Charter and American law.

The court held the Crown failed to prove the voluntariness of statements made during a police station interview due to gaps in the evidentiary record concerning the accused’s treatment between arrest and questioning.

However, statements made at the time of arrest providing a false name and date of birth were admissible because they arose from routine identity questions following a lawful arrest and did not constitute investigative interrogation.

The court further confirmed that the Canadian Charter generally does not apply to foreign officials acting outside Canada, though foreign evidence may still be excluded if its admission would render the trial unfair.

Pre‑trial Charter motions considered the admissibility of evidence arising from a police detention and search conducted in connection with a firearm investigation and search warrant.

The court found the Information to Obtain contained inaccurate, misleading, and incomplete information, and that police exceeded the lawful scope of investigative detention by questioning the accused and conducting searches for evidentiary purposes.

Applying s. 24(2) of the Charter and the framework in R. v. Grant, the court held that the seriousness of the Charter breaches and their impact on the accused’s liberty and privacy interests favoured exclusion of evidence obtained from the accused in the parking lot.

However, the accused failed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment searched under the warrant.

As a result, the firearm and ammunition recovered from the apartment were admissible, while the key, drugs, cash, and related utterances obtained from the detention were excluded.

The accused, a co-owner of a temporary employment agency, was charged with fraud over $5000, forgery, and using forged documents.

The Crown alleged that the accused defrauded the company by adding phantom former employees to the payroll draft, intercepting their cash pay envelopes, and forging their signatures on cash receipts.

The accused was also charged with forging letters from his business partner to provide to his conditional sentence supervisor to facilitate personal activities.

The court rejected the admission of similar fact evidence regarding a prior fraud conviction.

Applying the W.D. test, the court rejected the accused's testimony as incredible and accepted the evidence of the business partner and former employees.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts, concluding the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused perpetrated the fraud and forged the documents.

The accused was sentenced following convictions for multiple firearms offences arising from possession of a loaded prohibited semi‑automatic handgun and obstruction of justice.

The court considered the appropriate sentencing range in light of mandatory minimum penalties for prohibited firearm possession and the heightened danger posed by carrying a loaded firearm in a public place.

Although the accused was a young first‑time offender with strong rehabilitative prospects and significant community support, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence due to the serious public safety risk.

The court also considered credit for pre‑trial custody and partial credit for strict house arrest bail conditions as mitigating factors.

A global custodial sentence of four years was imposed with credit for pre‑trial custody and limited credit for bail conditions.

The appellant appealed his sentence for a convenience store robbery involving a sawed-off shotgun.

He argued the trial judge erred in treating his criminal record and applying the parity principle compared to his co-accused.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting the appellant's record included a previous penitentiary term and weapons offence, and that the co-accused had pleaded guilty.

The sentence was deemed fit and the appeal was dismissed.