video surveillance

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon following an altercation at a homeless shelter.

Video surveillance captured the accused swiping at the complainant's neck with a knife, after which the complainant beat the accused.

The accused claimed he was holding a crack pipe and raised self-defence.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, found no air of reality to the self-defence claim, and convicted the accused based on the clear video evidence.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit.

At trial, the accused brought Charter applications alleging breaches of his rights to counsel and privacy.

The court dismissed the s. 10(b) claims, finding the brief delay in providing rights to counsel was justified and the accused freely chose to speak to duty counsel.

However, the court found a s. 8 breach because the accused was video recorded urinating in his cell without reasonable privacy measures.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the breath sample evidence under s. 24(2) due to the seriousness of the police's ongoing failure to address washroom privacy despite prior judicial pronouncements.

The charge was dismissed.

The appellants appealed their convictions for various firearms offences, arguing that the trial judge erred in identifying them from video surveillance footage, ignoring the lack of evidence from a search warrant, rejecting exculpatory witness testimony, and finding that the objects they carried were loaded restricted firearms.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly applied the principles for video identification, adequately considered the search warrant evidence, reasonably assessed witness credibility, and drew a logical inference that the firearms were loaded given the circumstances of the altercation.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery while armed with an offensive weapon and carrying a concealed weapon.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing the reliability of identification evidence from two witnesses due to pre-suggestion, and erred by not expressing his own opinion on the identification after viewing the surveillance video.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly treated the witnesses' testimony as recognition evidence and was not required to supplement it with his own observations.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting the identification evidence of a police officer who identified him from a store video.

The officer had interacted with the appellant on the night of his arrest, taking photos and paying attention to his features.

The Court of Appeal found no error, holding that the officer's prior acquaintance with the appellant, though not lengthy, was sufficient for admissibility, with its duration going to weight.

The court also found no unfairness regarding the photos and noted that minor inconsistencies in the officers' evidence were matters for the jury.

The appeal was dismissed.