video surveillance

A young person was tried on charges arising from two separate incidents: a mass shooting at a Subway restaurant in Waterloo on April 19, 2019, where approximately 35 shots were fired into a crowded establishment, and a series of offences committed on May 16, 2019, including dangerous driving, fleeing police, and possession of a loaded firearm with serial number removed.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, particularly video surveillance footage, cell phone records, GPS data, and physical evidence recovered from the scene.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence establishing identity as one of the shooters and connecting him to the May 16 incident through a clear chain of evidence.

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 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 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 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 accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood following a single-vehicle rollover on Highway 427.

The Crown proceeded on both counts.

The defence challenged the arrest on reasonable and probable grounds and brought Charter applications alleging violations of sections 7 and 8 regarding video surveillance of the accused urinating in a police cell.

The trial judge found the arrest was lawful and dismissed the Charter applications, finding that although a privacy breach occurred, the police had provided adequate notice and privacy protection measures.

The accused was acquitted of impaired driving but convicted of the over-80 offence.

The accused was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant alleged sexual assault by the accused and a co-accused in a parking lot, supported by the co-accused's testimony, video surveillance, and taxi drivers' accounts.

The accused denied the assault, claiming he only assisted the co-accused.

The court found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, rejecting his denial and accepting the complainant's and co-accused's evidence, corroborated by video and other circumstantial evidence.

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 young person was charged with three firearm-related offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act: possession of a prohibited firearm, occupying a motor vehicle knowing a prohibited weapon was present, and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

The Crown's case relied on admissions by defence counsel regarding the accuracy of photographs, surveillance video, and police evidence.

The sole issue at trial was whether the Crown proved the defendant's knowledge and control of the firearm beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance showing the defendant's exclusive control over the vehicle, his placement of the firearm in the car, and his post-offence conduct, compelled only one reasonable inference: that the defendant knew the loaded shotgun was in the vehicle.

The defendant was found guilty on all three counts.

The defendant was charged with nine counts of fraud-related offences arising from personation to apply for and obtain credit cards that were allegedly used to defraud three financial institutions.

The defendant was also charged with two breaches of a recognizance of bail.

The central issue was whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the person who committed the offences.

The court examined identification evidence, including bank surveillance videos, financial transaction records, and officer recognition evidence.

The court found the defendant guilty on four counts (counts 1, 2, 4, and 5) and not guilty on five counts (counts 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9), primarily due to insufficient evidence linking the defendant to certain transactions and breaches.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence from his impaired driving trial based on two alleged Charter violations.

First, he argued that the approved screening device demand was invalid because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion that he had operated a motor vehicle within the preceding three hours, as required by s. 254(2) of the Criminal Code.

Second, he argued that video surveillance of him urinating in a police cell violated s. 8 of the Charter.

The court found that the first breach was not established, as the officer's reasonable suspicion could be inferred from the circumstances.

The court found that the second breach was established but declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, balancing the seriousness of the violation against the minimal impact and society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The accused was charged with impaired driving contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown withdrew a charge of refusing to provide a breath sample.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings based on alleged violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol based on civilian witness testimony and police observations.

While the court found a breach of section 8 regarding video surveillance of the accused using toilet facilities in police custody, it declined to grant a stay of proceedings.

The court also dismissed allegations of breaches of sections 9 and 10(b).

The accused was convicted of impaired operation.

The defendant was charged with drug trafficking offences arising from a 2013 police investigation into crack cocaine trafficking from an apartment building in Oshawa.

Police received confidential human source information and conducted surveillance, including video surveillance of common areas, leading to search warrants for apartments 308 and 404.

The defendant challenged the warrants on Charter grounds, arguing deficiencies in the Information to Obtain and asserting violations of his Section 8 rights.

The court found the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of apartment 404 due to insufficient evidence of his connection to the premises.

On the merits, the court acquitted the defendant of all charges, finding the Crown failed to prove possession of the drugs beyond a reasonable doubt due to lack of evidence establishing the defendant's occupancy, control, or connection to the apartment and the specific items seized.

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

The Crown proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court rejected Charter applications challenging the arrest, breath demand, and video surveillance of the accused in the holding cell.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and breath demand, and determined that while video surveillance of the accused using the toilet infringed her section 8 rights, the infringement was not so serious as to warrant exclusion of evidence or a stay of proceedings.

The court found the accused guilty of both offences.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit following a traffic stop on Highway 401.

The Crown's case relied on roadside screening device and Breathalyzer test results.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of the evidence on Charter grounds, alleging violations of section 8 rights to privacy arising from video surveillance of his use of a toilet while in police custody.

The court acquitted the defendant of the impaired driving charge based on insufficient evidence of impairment.

The court found a Charter breach regarding the video surveillance and excluded the Breathalyzer results under section 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in acquittal on the "over 80" charge as well.

The accused was charged with two counts of fraud under $5,000 for fraudulently obtaining an amplifier and a computer from Long & McQuade using fraudulent cheques.

The sole issue at trial was identity.

The accused claimed his brother committed the offences, but evidence established no such brother existed.

The Crown proved identity through identification documents provided at the time of purchase, cheque signatures matching the accused's driver's licence signatures, video surveillance matching the accused's driver's licence photograph, and testimony from neighbours who had never seen a brother.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The accused was charged with driving with excess blood alcohol contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was stopped by police as he exited a licensed establishment that appeared on the Peel Police Last Drink Programme statistics.

The accused challenged the stop as an arbitrary detention violating section 9 of the Charter and challenged the video surveillance of his consultation with counsel as violating section 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found no Charter violations and convicted the accused.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood following a traffic stop on May 11, 2012.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of evidence on three grounds: (1) that video surveillance of his consultation with duty counsel violated his Charter right to private consultation; (2) that there was insufficient evidence the breath samples were taken pursuant to a demand under section 254(3); and (3) that there were insufficient grounds for arrest and the breath demand.

The court found no Charter violation regarding the video surveillance, rejected the demand argument, and found reasonable grounds for the arrest.

However, the court concluded that while the evidence supported conviction on the exceed 80 charge, it fell short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the impaired driving charge.