Forensic evidence

The accused was charged with three firearm-related offences: possession of a loaded prohibited firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code, unauthorized possession of a firearm contrary to s. 91(1), and possession of a firearm knowing its possession was unauthorized contrary to s. 92(1).

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence that a loaded handgun and ammunition were discovered by the accused's father under a mattress in the basement bedroom where the accused resided.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the firearm.

The court found that the accused's knowledge and control of the firearm was the only reasonable inference from the totality of the evidence and convicted on all three counts.

On a criminal appeal as of right, the central issue was whether a handgun found in the appellant’s car met the Criminal Code definition of “firearm” under s. 2.

The trial judge had acquitted on several firearms counts after concluding operability required special expertise, considerable time, and parts not readily available.

The appellate court set aside acquittals, entered convictions on two firearms offences, and ordered a new trial on remaining firearms counts.

The Court held the handgun was a firearm and substantially agreed with the appellate reasons, including that the trial judge failed to assess all evidence on the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence.

The appeal was dismissed and the convictions and new trial order were upheld.

This is a ruling on a Crown application to admit investigative notes and records of a police officer (DC Soucy) as a principled exception to the hearsay rule in a criminal trial.

DC Soucy, who was involved in forensic evidence collection and handling, is on medical leave and unable to testify.

The defence conceded necessity but disputed threshold reliability.

The court found that DC Soucy's limited, routine role, contemporaneous note-taking, photographic corroboration, and lack of motive to lie established sufficient substantive reliability.

The application was allowed, making the evidence admissible.

The accused, Cindy Ali, was charged with first-degree murder in the death of her daughter.

Following a successful appeal of a prior conviction, she proceeded to a new trial without a jury.

The Crown alleged she smothered her daughter, either as a planned act (mercy killing), an impulsive act (second-degree murder), or through criminal negligence by failing to provide necessaries of life (manslaughter) during a staged home invasion.

The defence maintained her innocence, asserting a genuine home invasion by intruders or an accidental death due to seizure/aspiration.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the accused's culpability, noting that both the defence's home invasion account and the Crown's staging theory were equally consistent with the evidence.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The appellant, P.K., appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference involving his 15-year-old niece.

The appeal raised two grounds: the trial judge's response to a jury question concerning forensic evidence and the instruction given on the complainant's videotaped statement under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's response to the jury's request for a read-back of expert testimony was appropriate, given the practical difficulties and the lack of material prejudice.

The court also affirmed that the instruction on the s. 715.1 statement was correct, as such statements are admissible for their truth and as part of the in-court testimony.

The appeal was dismissed.

Siavash Norouzian was charged with heroin trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of an undercover officer, Detective Constable Gazey, and Sergeant Sutton.

However, forensic phone data contradicted Detective Constable Gazey's sworn evidence regarding phone calls, voice identification, and text messages, leading the court to find him not credible and unreliable.

Sergeant Sutton's evidence was also deemed unreliable due to lost notes and delayed report writing.

The court emphasized the importance of reliable forensic evidence in challenging police testimony and the Crown's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Given the significant credibility and reliability issues with the key Crown witnesses, Mr. Norouzian was acquitted of all charges.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an encounter with the complainant.

The complainant testified that the sexual activity was initially consensual but she withdrew her consent when it became rough, and the accused did not stop.

The court assessed the complainant's credibility, addressing inconsistencies, delayed disclosure, and forensic DNA evidence.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence, finding that she communicated her withdrawal of consent and the accused continued the sexual activity.

The accused was found guilty.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision determining whether the accused should be committed to stand trial on first-degree murder or second-degree murder charges.

The Crown alleged that the accused planned and deliberately murdered the victim by shooting him in the head.

The Crown's primary evidence was surveillance video showing the accused entering the victim's apartment with a gun pointed at the victim's back.

The defence conceded sufficient evidence existed for second-degree murder but contested first-degree murder.

The court found that while the surveillance video evidence of the gun was significant, when considered in the context of all evidence—including the accused allowing the victim to leave the apartment briefly, the absence of evidence of animus between the parties, and the lack of evidence of a struggle—the evidence did not support a reasonable inference of planning and deliberation required for first-degree murder.

The court discharged the accused on first-degree murder but committed him to stand trial on second-degree murder.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault following a jury trial.

On appeal, the court found that the Crown engaged in improper conduct during cross-examination and closing address, including eroding the appellant's right to silence by suggesting he should have provided information to police earlier, and mischaracterizing forensic evidence.

The trial judge failed to provide correcting jury instructions to address these issues.

The court found that the cumulative effect of these problems resulted in an unfair trial and a miscarriage of justice.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm following an incident with his intimate partner.

The complainant alleged the defendant slapped her multiple times and punched her in the eye, causing facial injuries.

The defendant testified that the complainant's injuries resulted from her accidental fall as she ran from the apartment.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to multiple inconsistencies, contradictions, and misrepresentations regarding her alcohol consumption, the apartment ransacking, and other material facts.

Despite the complainant's injuries, the judge found the defendant's account plausible and consistent, and acquitted him based on reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed his convictions on two counts of attempted murder following a judge-alone trial.

The charges arose from the appellant using his motor vehicle as a weapon against two complainants.

The sole issue at trial was whether the appellant intended to kill the complainants.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by failing to consider evidence that, if he had intended to kill the complainants, he would have driven at them while they lay helpless on the ground after being struck.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not make a finding that the complainants had been struck and rendered helpless, having identified credibility and reliability issues with their evidence.

Instead, the trial judge relied on evidence from three independent neighbours and forensic evidence, including photographs showing tire tracks and extensive damage.

The Court upheld the conviction, finding the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant pursued the complainants at high speed with intent to kill was reasonable and grounded in the evidence.

The appellant was convicted of arson under sections 433 and 434 of the Criminal Code for deliberately setting fire to his two-storey building in Espanola with the intent to collect insurance proceeds.

The Crown's case relied on evidence of motive, planning, preparation, forensic evidence linking the appellant to the fire, and testimony from a disreputable witness who was likely an accomplice.

The appellant appealed on four grounds: that the trial judge improperly used neutral evidence to confirm the accomplice's account, misused the appellant's exculpatory statements as evidence of guilt, improperly excluded relevant evidence through misapplication of the collateral fact rule, and engaged in speculative reasoning inconsistent with the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge made some errors, they were not material to the conviction given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault entered on June 18, 2013.

The appellant raised two grounds of appeal: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to subpoena certain witnesses and lead evidence of negative forensic test results, and (2) that the trial judge erred by not providing a W.D.-like instruction to the jury.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in either argument and dismissed the appeal.

The accused, David Odesho, brought an application under Section 8 of the Charter to exclude evidence obtained from a strip search and challenged the admissibility of gunshot residue (GSR) evidence found on his underwear.

The court found that the strip search violated Section 8 because there were insufficient grounds to justify it and it was conducted unreasonably, particularly due to being videotaped in its entirety and not authorized by an independent supervisor.

Applying the Grant factors, the court excluded the underwear and GSR analysis under Section 24(2) of the Charter.

Additionally, the court ruled that the single particle of GSR found on the underwear 48 hours after the shooting lacked logical relevance and was inadmissible as expert evidence under the Mohan test, given the numerous alternate explanations for its presence and its low probative value.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to commit the accused to trial on charges of break and enter, possession of break-in tools, and mischief arising from a sophisticated bank theft at a TD Bank in Burlington.

The accused were found hiding in a field shortly after the theft, in close proximity to admitted perpetrators and stolen property.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including concrete dust and drywall particles found on the accused's clothing and tools in the accused Hickey's van.

The court discharged the accused on all counts, finding that the Crown's evidence was equivocal and speculative, failing to establish the essential elements of the offences beyond what a reasonable jury properly instructed could convict upon.

During a jury trial for homicide-related offences, the accused sought a ruling preventing the Crown from arguing that marks on the deceased’s clothing were footwear impressions attributable to the accused.

The forensic investigator described several impressions on the clothing but did not identify them as footwear impressions and could not match them to the footwear of either accused.

The court held that the Crown’s proposed inference lacked the necessary foundational evidence and would amount to impermissible speculation.

Applying principles governing circumstantial evidence and inference‑drawing, the court concluded that the primary fact that the impressions were caused by footwear had not been established.

Crown counsel was therefore prohibited from inviting the jury to conclude that the impressions were footwear impressions or attributable to the accused.

At a preliminary inquiry into the death of Shane Stone, the Crown sought committal of three accused on charges of second degree murder.

The victim was beaten to death in the accused's bedroom on January 2, 2013.

One accused conceded committal.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit the other two accused to trial on second degree murder, with one accused also facing charges of accessory after the fact and robbery.

The decision turned on circumstantial evidence including DNA findings, forensic evidence, witness testimony, and cell phone records establishing presence and participation in the assault.

The accused was charged with multiple offences including sexual interference and sexual assault involving a complainant under the age of 16.

The defence challenged the complainant’s credibility and reliability and argued the police investigation was incomplete.

The court assessed inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony and considered forensic DNA evidence linking the accused to semen found on the complainant’s underwear.

Applying the principles governing credibility assessments and the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the court found the complainant credible and accepted the expert DNA evidence as corroborative of key allegations.

The accused was convicted on all four counts.

Two accused were charged with sexual assault, administering a stupefying or noxious substance to facilitate sexual assault, and being parties to each other’s alleged sexual assault.

The complainant reported memory loss and later flashbacks alleging anal sexual assaults after a night of drinking and attending the accused’s condominium.

The court found significant reliability issues with the complainant’s evidence, including inconsistent recollections, delayed “flashback” memories, and refusal to acknowledge possible memory error.

Forensic and circumstantial evidence did not establish the administration of a drug or non-consensual sexual activity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court concluded the Crown failed to prove lack of consent or the involvement of both accused in the alleged assaults.

The accused applied for a bail review under s. 523 of the Criminal Code seeking release from custody on charges of second degree murder and committing an indignity to a human body.

The defence argued that 19 new Centre of Forensic Sciences reports showing no DNA linking the accused to the offence constituted a material change in circumstances since the original bail hearing.

The court held that the absence of DNA evidence had already been recognized in the original decision and therefore did not amount to a material change.

The proposed release plan relied on the same sureties previously rejected and did not address prior concerns about their ability to control the accused.

The application for release was dismissed.