Mr. Big operation

The accused brought a pre-trial application to exclude two videotapes containing a confession to the murder of the deceased.

The confession was obtained during a 14-month undercover police operation, which the court identified as a variation of a 'Mr. Big' scheme.

The undercover officers posed as criminals and offered to help the accused defeat an upcoming polygraph test, leading to a confession and re-enactment of the stabbing.

The court applied the Hart framework and found that while the operation triggered the presumptive inadmissibility of the confession, the Crown successfully proved the confession was reliable and its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect.

The court also dismissed arguments that the police conduct violated section 7 of the Charter or amounted to an abuse of process.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, applied for bail under s. 469 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown opposed release on the secondary and tertiary grounds, citing the applicant's serious criminal record and the gravity of the offence.

The court found that the Crown's case was weak, relying entirely on recanted statements from an unsavoury witness obtained during a 'Mr. Big' operation, which contradicted objective evidence.

The court concluded the applicant met his onus on both grounds and granted release on strict house arrest conditions with sureties.

During a murder trial involving a Mr. Big undercover operation, the Crown sought to introduce statements the accused made to an undercover officer about his prior involvement in the cocaine trade.

The defence objected, arguing the evidence was highly prejudicial bad character evidence.

The court applied the framework for propensity evidence and found that the evidence was highly probative to the jury's assessment of the reliability of the accused's confession, as it provided context regarding his sophistication and vulnerability to inducements.

The court ruled the evidence admissible, concluding its probative value outweighed the risk of prejudice, which could be managed with a limiting instruction.

The plaintiff sued the police and Crown Attorneys for negligent investigation, unlawful arrest, and intentional infliction of mental suffering following an acquittal on a murder charge that involved a 'Mr. Big' operation.

The Crown Attorneys moved to strike the plaintiff's claim and a crossclaim brought by the police for negligent legal advice.

The court struck the plaintiff's claim against the Crown Attorneys, finding it barred by absolute common law immunity, which only allows claims for malicious prosecution.

However, the court refused to strike the police crossclaim for negligent legal advice, finding it was not plain and obvious that Crown Attorneys do not owe a duty of care to police when providing legal advice during an investigation.

The court also held that statutory immunity under s. 8 of the Ministry of the Attorney General Act applied to the plaintiff's claim but not the crossclaim.