video surveillance

The accused was charged with one count of theft under $5,000 and two counts of assault.

The Crown's case was based on circumstantial evidence and video surveillance.

The victims were assaulted with pepper spray by masked individuals in an alleyway and one victim's purse was stolen.

The central issue was identity.

The court found the accused guilty based on compelling circumstantial evidence including video surveillance showing the accused leaving the building wearing a mask, appearing moments after the assault, following the victim, picking up the victim's dropped jacket without attempting to return it, and coordinating with other masked individuals to bring stolen items back into the building.

The defendant, Jermaine Haughton, was charged with break and enter, assault with a weapon, failing to comply with a release order, and theft under, following an incident where a masked assailant entered Joseph Prempeh's apartment and assaulted him.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, primarily video surveillance, to identify Haughton as the assailant.

Haughton admitted to the theft and the breach of the release order but denied being the assailant, claiming it was his friend Oshane.

The court found Haughton's testimony incredible due to inconsistencies and rejected his narrative.

Based on the cumulative circumstantial evidence, including matching clothing, physical attributes, timing, and post-offence conduct, the court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Haughton was the assailant and found him guilty on all charges.

The plaintiff sought long-term disability (LTD) benefits and general damages for breach of contract, claiming total disability due to chronic back and leg pain, anxiety, and depression.

The plaintiff had not submitted a formal LTD application, seeking relief from forfeiture.

The court granted relief from forfeiture, finding imperfect compliance.

However, the court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's claim for LTD benefits and general damages, finding that he failed to prove total disability as defined by the policy, largely due to inconsistencies between his subjective complaints, objective medical evidence, video surveillance, and his work history.

This ruling addresses a Leaney application by the Crown to admit a police officer's opinion evidence regarding the identity of the accused from surveillance video footage.

The court applied the "prior acquaintance/better position" test, finding the officer sufficiently familiar with one accused (Siddiqui) to offer an opinion.

The application was granted for high-quality video footage from a school portable but denied for poor-quality video from the East York Town Centre, emphasizing that video quality is a crucial factor for admissibility of recognition evidence.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon after a joint trial.

The appeal centered on the trial judge's misapprehension of video surveillance evidence, which was believed to be uninterrupted but contained significant gaps.

The Court of Appeal found this misapprehension material and central to the trial judge's reasoning for conviction, thus warranting setting aside the convictions.

However, the Court declined to enter an acquittal, determining that the verdict was not unreasonable given other circumstantial evidence, and ordered a new trial.

The accused, a self-represented inmate, brought multiple Charter applications seeking a stay of proceedings on grounds of alleged violations of his rights to privacy, full answer and defence, and a fair trial.

The accused alleged privacy violations arising from exposure of his genitals during medical treatment and use of washroom facilities while under video surveillance at the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre.

He also alleged that disclosure was not provided in a timely manner and that his incarceration without access to counsel, the internet, or adequate telephone access compromised his ability to prepare his defence.

The court dismissed all applications, finding no Charter breaches that would warrant a stay of proceedings.

The defendant, Ho Ting Char, was charged with conspiracy, unlawful production of methamphetamine, and unlawful production of ketamine.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial video surveillance evidence of the defendant's non-verbal conduct at various locations associated with clandestine drug laboratories.

The court found the evidence, while suspicious, did not unequivocally prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew he was participating in drug production or was part of a conspiracy, as innocent explanations for his conduct could not be excluded.

Consequently, the defendant was acquitted on all counts.

The defendant was charged with attempt murder and firearms-related offences arising from a shooting incident at Yonge Street and Elm Street in Toronto on July 28, 2019.

The Crown's case relied on video surveillance evidence and forensic examination of the scene.

The court found that while a firearm was discharged during a confrontation between the defendant and Keshawn Bell at a McDonald's restaurant entrance, the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed or discharged a firearm.

The court noted that the forensic evidence of spent ammunition from two different manufacturers did not necessarily indicate two firearms were used, and the video evidence at the corner of Yonge and Elm was too unclear to identify the defendant.

The defendant was acquitted of all charges.

The accused was charged with two break-ins occurring within 900 metres of each other in Brampton on September 2, 2018.

The first involved a break and enter with theft at a residential property.

The second involved a break and enter with sexual assault of a thirteen-year-old girl.

The Crown's case relied primarily on circumstantial evidence including video surveillance footage, the complainant's testimony, probation officer identification evidence, and recovered stolen property.

The defence challenged identification and the reliability of the complainant's evidence.

The trial judge found the accused guilty on all counts based on a holistic assessment of the circumstantial evidence, rejecting the defence application to admit similar fact evidence regarding prior convictions.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol after being found asleep in his vehicle in a maintenance yard.

The Crown's case relied on observations of impairment at the scene and breath test results showing blood alcohol levels of 100 and 95 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of evidence on Charter grounds, alleging that video recording of him using toilet facilities in police custody violated his section 7 and 8 rights.

The court found a Charter breach occurred due to improper positioning of a privacy screen in the cell video system, but determined that exclusion of evidence was not warranted under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The defendant was convicted of both impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol.

The applicant, Omar James, charged with drug trafficking, brought a Charter application challenging the validity of a search warrant and seeking exclusion of evidence.

The application alleged violations of his s. 8 Charter right due to insufficient grounds in the Information to Obtain (ITO), unauthorized video surveillance in a common hallway, improper acquisition of rental car information, non-disclosure of material information in the ITO, and failure to satisfy the Debot test for confidential informants.

The court dismissed the application, finding no s. 8 Charter breach and, alternatively, that the evidence would have been admissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Crown applied for a ruling on the admissibility of opinion evidence from a probation officer regarding the identification of an unknown male recorded on home surveillance video from a residence proximate to where a break-in and sexual assault allegedly occurred.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine admissibility under the "prior acquaintance/better position" test established in Leaney.

The probation officer had supervised the accused on multiple occasions and observed his physical appearance, gait, clothing, and other characteristics.

The court found the evidence admissible, as the witness had sufficient familiarity with the accused and was in a better position than the court to identify similarities between the accused and the person in the video.

The witness testified only to consistencies and similarities, not to a positive identification.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and failure to comply with probation (2x) following an incident on August 9, 2018, in which the victim was slashed across the face with a knife outside a men's shelter.

The sole issue at trial was identity.

The Crown presented direct evidence from the victim, extensive video surveillance evidence, DNA evidence linking the accused to clothing found at the scene, DNA evidence of the victim on a knife found during the accused's arrest, and non-expert recognition evidence from police officers.

The defence conceded the accused was present at the scene but argued an alternative suspect may have committed the assault.

The court found the evidence overwhelming and convicted the accused on all counts.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while having an excessive amount of alcohol in his blood following a single-vehicle accident near Simcoe, Ontario.

The accused alleged that police violated his section 8 Charter rights by videotaping him using toilet facilities while in police custody without providing adequate privacy protections.

The court found that the accused's Charter rights were breached on two occasions when he used the toilet at the police station.

Although the police had a policy of providing privacy gowns to detainees, the implementation of this policy was inadequate.

The court applied the Grant test and determined that the seriousness of the breach and its impact on the accused's privacy and dignity outweighed society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The breath sample analysis results were excluded as evidence, and the charge was dismissed.

The defendant, Ghenadie Carpov, was charged with sexual assault, administering a noxious substance to cause bodily harm, and administering a stupefying thing to commit an indictable offence, involving two complainants, L.M. and L.O. The court found the defendant guilty of two counts of sexual assault but not guilty of the charges related to administering a noxious substance.

The court rejected the defendant's testimony regarding consent, finding that both complainants lacked the capacity to consent due to intoxication, which the defendant exploited.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of Mr. Menard on a charge under s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, where the trial judge had excluded Intoxilyzer breath results under s. 24(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The trial judge found multiple Charter breaches related to a pat-down search, detention in a police cruiser for ASD testing, detention in a locked cell, and video surveillance during urination.

The Superior Court found that while Charter breaches occurred, the trial judge erred in principle and made an unreasonable conclusion regarding the impact of these violations on Mr. Menard's Charter interests.

The appellate court determined that the state conduct was minor, the impact on the accused's Charter interests was negligible (lacking a causal connection to the breath samples), and the evidence was reliable and crucial to the Crown's case.

Balancing these factors, the court concluded that excluding the Intoxilyzer results would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and the matter remitted for a new trial.

A litigation guardian, acting as attorney for personal care and property, brought a motion for a mandatory injunction seeking unrestricted access to a patient and non-interference with video cameras installed in the patient's hospital room.

The court dismissed the motion for injunctive relief, finding that the three-part test for interlocutory injunctions was not met, particularly regarding irreparable harm and the balance of convenience.

However, the court granted an order for the maintenance, control, preservation, and disclosure of video records under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, recognizing the need to preserve evidence in the ongoing dispute concerning the patient's care.

The applicant, Mustafa Hassan, brought an application under sections 8, 9, and 24(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking to exclude evidence obtained through alleged unreasonable search and seizure.

The application challenged the lawfulness of police video surveillance in the common hallway of a multi-unit apartment building without a warrant, and the subsequent search warrant for his apartment, arguing it was based on unconstitutionally obtained evidence and lacked reasonable grounds.

The court found that the covert video surveillance in the hallway without a warrant violated the applicant's attenuated, but still existing, reasonable expectation of privacy under section 8 of the Charter.

However, the court determined that the search warrant for the apartment was still valid after excising the unconstitutionally obtained video evidence, as sufficient independent grounds remained.

Applying the section 24(2) Grant test, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, considering the seriousness of the breach (low), the impact on the applicant's Charter rights (low, as the apartment was not his primary residence), and society's interest in adjudicating serious drug trafficking offences on their merits (high).

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused, Ricky Lionel Keewasin, was charged with aggravated sexual assault, sexual interference, and two counts of breach of recognizance involving a 13-year-old complainant, J.M. The trial focused on identity, as J.M.'s recollection was sparse due to intoxication.

The Crown relied on J.M.'s preliminary inquiry testimony, video surveillance, and DNA evidence (J.M.'s blood on the accused's sweatshirt).

The defence argued J.M.'s testimony was unreliable and the video quality insufficient for identification.

The court rejected the accused's testimony, finding the video and DNA evidence, combined with J.M.'s and her sister's testimony, sufficient to establish identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court also ruled J.M.'s initial statements to her cousin and police were not admissible as *res gestae*.

The accused was found guilty on all four charges.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of the arrest, the timing of breath tests, the privacy of counsel consultation, the failure to video-record breath tests, and the video surveillance of the holding cell.

The court found no Charter violations with respect to reasonable and probable grounds, reasons for arrest, timing of breath tests, or counsel consultation.

The court found that while video surveillance of the holding cell raised privacy concerns, there was no infringement of the accused's section 8 rights in the specific circumstances, as the accused had a reduced expectation of privacy while in custody and no part of his genitals was visible on the recording.

The court rejected applications for a stay of proceedings and exclusion of evidence, finding that admission of the breath test results would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.