DNA evidence

The applicant, Roger Boissé, sought to exclude DNA evidence and/or stay proceedings under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging violations of sections 7, 8, 10(b), 15, and 16.

The core of the application concerned the validity of his consent to provide a DNA sample, arguing it was not informed or voluntary due to linguistic issues (English consent form for a French speaker) and alleged police coercion.

The court found that the Crown successfully demonstrated that the consent was informed and voluntary, and that no Charter rights were violated.

Specifically, the court determined that the applicant was not detained, had prior legal counsel, and understood his rights despite the language challenges.

Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the DNA evidence was deemed admissible for trial.

The Crown alleged Christian Collins breached his Conditional Sentence Order (CSO) by committing an armed robbery shortly after the CSO was finalized.

The court found overwhelming circumstantial evidence, including DNA and the purchase of walkie-talkies used in the robbery, connecting Collins to the crime.

The court determined that Collins's previously established "complete and successful reformation," which was a premise for the CSO, was erroneous.

Given the serious nature of the breach (armed robbery) and the underlying offences (drug trafficking, firearm possession) which endangered public safety, the court concluded that the CSO was no longer appropriate.

The CSO was terminated, and Collins was committed to custody for the remainder of his sentence.

The accused, Winston Durant, sought a stay of criminal proceedings for sexual assault and related charges, alleging a violation of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court applied the R. v. Jordan framework, calculating a total delay of 42.5 months.

After deducting 11 months of defence-caused delay (including refusal to schedule pre-trial and earlier trial dates), the net delay was 31.5 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court cases.

However, the court found two exceptional circumstances: a one-month delay due to the complainant's hospitalization and at least six months due to the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on jury trials.

Subtracting these seven months reduced the remaining delay to 24.5 months, below the ceiling.

The court further found that the accused failed to demonstrate a sustained effort to expedite proceedings, having actively sought to delay the trial.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed, and the trial was ordered to proceed.

This judgment concerns a murder trial where the accused, Brandon Lamoureux, was charged with the fatal stabbing of Gilbert Rumleskie.

The central issue was the identification of the stabber, with conflicting and unreliable witness testimonies from Jordan Plumb and Ashley Dombroskie, and circumstantial evidence including grainy surveillance video and DNA analysis.

The court meticulously assessed the credibility of all witnesses, noting significant inconsistencies and admitted lies from the Crown's key witnesses.

Despite evidence of animus and prior threats by the accused towards the victim, the court found a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused or Jordan Plumb, whose knife was the murder weapon and bore his DNA, inflicted the fatal wound.

The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be rationally inconsistent with any other conclusion than guilt, and that reasonable inferences consistent with innocence can arise from a lack of evidence.

Ultimately, the court found the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, Malik Mbuyi, brought an application under sections 7, 8, and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude DNA evidence obtained via two search warrants (TPS and Brantford warrants) in a first-degree murder trial.

The applicant argued that police circumvented proper procedures, misled the issuing justice, and engaged in an abuse of process by obtaining a DNA warrant for stale youth offences primarily to advance the homicide investigation.

The court dismissed the application, finding no Charter breach under section 8, no abuse of process under section 7, and that even if there were breaches, the evidence would be admissible under section 24(2) due to the seriousness of the crime, reliability of the evidence, and public interest in adjudication on the merits.

The defendant, Damen Smith, faced charges including drug trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and firearm offences.

The charges stemmed from a police surveillance operation, a vehicle takedown, and subsequent searches of a Nissan Rogue and an apartment.

The court relied heavily on wiretap intercepts and circumstantial evidence.

The defendant was found guilty of drug trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime related to the vehicle.

However, the court found reasonable doubt regarding the firearm charges due to poor police handling of evidence and the presence of other occupants, and also found reasonable doubt for the drug and proceeds charges related to the apartment due to insufficient evidence of the defendant's primary residence and the presence of another individual.

The appellant, convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference, appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing and relying on the complainant's voice identification evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the voice recognition evidence was a minor part of a broader constellation of evidence, including DNA, physical injuries, and the complainant's visual identification of the appellant.

The court held that the trial judge's overall scrutiny of the complainant's evidence, despite minor mischaracterizations, was sufficient to address reliability concerns.

The accused, Shane Codrington, was charged with multiple offences including robbery, sexual assault with an imitation firearm, unlawful confinement, and sexual assault with a weapon, stemming from an incident on July 10, 2019.

The Crown presented evidence including the complainant's testimony, video surveillance, and forensic DNA evidence linking a co-accused.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming an alibi and that evidence was planted.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and corroborated by video and medical evidence.

The court rejected the accused's alibi and claims of planted evidence, finding his testimony untruthful.

The accused was found guilty on all counts except one related to the co-accused's participation in the elevator assault.

The defendant, Anoop Kumar Ubbu, was charged with one count of sexual assault.

The trial focused on whether the complainant, JY, consented to sexual activity and whether the defendant had an honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The court found JY to be a credible witness who did not consent to any sexual activity with the defendant or other individuals.

The defendant's claim of honest but mistaken belief in consent was rejected due to his failure to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent and inconsistencies in his testimony.

The court found the defendant guilty of sexual assault.

The applicant, N.R., sought to set aside a guilty verdict for sexual assault and incest, requesting a mistrial due to alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel, or alternatively, to reopen the trial to admit fresh DNA evidence.

The court dismissed both applications.

The claim of ineffective assistance was rejected as the court found N.R. failed to prove his counsel prevented him from testifying, accepting counsel's evidence that the decision was N.R.'s.

The fresh evidence application was dismissed because the new DNA reports lacked credibility, were inadmissible, and would not have affected the trial outcome, as the conviction was primarily based on the complainant's testimony.

In a first-degree murder trial, the defence brought a motion for a mistrial, alleging numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct during the Crown's closing address to the jury.

The alleged errors included misstating evidence, introducing unelicited evidence, mocking defence counsel and witnesses, and improperly commenting on the burden of proof.

The court reviewed each alleged impropriety, finding some instances of improper conduct but concluding that, individually or cumulatively, they did not fatally wound the trial process or deprive the accused of a fair trial to the extent that a mistrial was warranted.

The motion was dismissed, with the court indicating that corrective instructions would be given to the jury.

The applicant sought a review of a bail judge's decision to continue his detention on a charge of second-degree murder, arguing that a material change in circumstances had occurred due to a trial judge's ruling granting leave to raise a third-party suspect defence.

The Court of Appeal, reviewing the decision de novo, assumed a material change but ultimately found that the apparent strength of the prosecution's case remained very strong despite the third-party suspect evidence.

The court dismissed the application, concluding that detention was still necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, particularly given the horrific nature of the crime, the vulnerability of the victim, and the overwhelming forensic evidence against the applicant.

This is a bail review application by Ajmain Rahman, who is charged with attempt murder and firearms offences.

The applicant sought release based on an enhanced supervision plan and the material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic, including his moderate asthma.

The court reviewed the original bail decision and a previous bail review, noting the applicant's history of non-compliance and the parents' past inability to supervise.

While acknowledging COVID-19 as a material change, the court found it insufficient to outweigh the deficiencies in the supervision plan, the serious nature of the offences, the strong Crown's case (bolstered by DNA evidence), and the applicant's non-compliant history.

The application for release was dismissed on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

Lorne Clifford Clement was charged with sexual assault.

The trial focused on the credibility of the complainant and the accused.

The court found the accused's testimony unreliable due to inconsistencies with his prior police statement and admitted intoxication.

The complainant's evidence was deemed credible and compelling.

The court rejected arguments based on stereotypical behaviour of sexual assault victims, citing appellate authority.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault.

The applicant, D.P., sought a review of a detention order for multiple sexual assault charges.

The Crown conceded that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances, requiring a de novo review of the detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found the proposed bail plan, even with electronic monitoring and increased surety, insufficient to address public safety concerns given the nature of the alleged serial sexual assaults and the sureties' inability to supervise.

The court also found that releasing the applicant would erode public confidence in the administration of justice due to the gravity of the offences, the strong Crown case, and the horrifying circumstances, despite the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on detention centers.

The application for review of the detention order was dismissed.

The applicant, Charles Mustard, charged with first-degree murder from a 1993 cold case, sought judicial interim release (bail) under s. 522(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown opposed his release.

The court assessed the three grounds for detention under s. 515(10): primary (attendance in court), secondary (public protection), and tertiary (maintaining confidence in the administration of justice).

While the applicant satisfied the primary and secondary grounds, the tertiary ground was a significant consideration due to the gravity of the offence and the apparent strength of the Crown's DNA evidence.

However, the court also considered the applicant's age (65), health conditions (borderline diabetes, arthritis, hearing/eyesight loss), and the heightened risk of COVID-19 transmission in detention facilities.

Despite a "porous" release plan involving the Toronto Bail Program and a shelter, the court found that the public, properly informed of Charter values and the pandemic crisis, would not lose confidence in the administration of justice by granting bail.

The application for bail was granted with specific conditions.

The defendant was charged with assault, choking with intent, sexual assault, and unlawful confinement.

The central issue was identification, with the Crown relying on the complainant's identification and DNA evidence, while the defence presented an alternative explanation for the DNA findings through witness testimony.

The court found the complainant's identification evidence unreliable due to inconsistencies and uncertainty.

Although the DNA evidence was compelling, the defence witnesses' accounts, despite minor flaws, raised a reasonable doubt regarding the defendant's identity as the perpetrator of the alleged assault at the Liberty Village apartment.

The court also addressed, for completeness, the elements of sexual assault and unlawful confinement, finding the sexual assault elements met but not the unlawful confinement elements due to uncertainty regarding intent.

The defendant was found not guilty on all counts.

The accused, P.L., was charged with sexual exploitation and sexual assault involving his 16-year-old great-niece, G.F. The incident occurred at P.L.'s home after G.F. had consumed alcohol.

The court found P.L. not guilty of sexual exploitation, as the Crown failed to prove a position of trust or authority or dependency.

However, P.L. was found guilty of sexual assault based on G.F.'s credible testimony, corroborated by DNA evidence and physical bruising, establishing that sexual activity occurred without G.F.'s consent while she was intoxicated and vulnerable.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of various PowerPoint slides the Crown sought to use during a criminal trial.

The defence objected to specific elements, including a label on a DNA evidence slide implying a warrant was necessary, the relevance of an arrest photo taken a year after the alleged offence, and the potential for opinion evidence from an officer using video stills.

The court ruled that the DNA slide must be edited to remove the warrant reference, the arrest photo was admissible given the significance of identification, and the video stills were admissible provided prejudicial labels were removed and witness testimony avoided improper opinion.

The accused, J.P., was charged with sexual interference and sexual assault involving a five-year-old complainant.

The case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the accused being found naked in bed with the complainant whose shorts and underwear were down, inculpatory statements by the accused, and DNA evidence.

The court found the mother's evidence unreliable due to inconsistencies and emotional state, and the expert DNA evidence inconclusive regarding the source and timing of semen.

The accused's testimony was disbelieved due to inconsistencies.

However, considering the evidence as a whole, the court was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt, leading to dismissal of all charges.