Kristen Pollock

The applicant, charged with domestic violence offences across two informations, brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total anticipated delay was nearly 35 months.

The court deducted delay caused by the complainant's failure to attend the first trial and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also found the Crown's decision to join the two informations was reasonable and did not reflect indifference to the applicant's Charter rights.

The application was dismissed.

During a sexual assault trial, the accused brought an application to exclude photographs of an Instagram conversation and testimony regarding a deleted text message.

The accused argued the Instagram photos lacked authentication under the Canada Evidence Act and the text message testimony was hearsay.

The court dismissed the application, admitting the Instagram photos because the Crown met the modest threshold for authentication through the anticipated testimony of the witness.

The court also allowed the testimony regarding the deleted text message, ruling it was not hearsay as it was being led to prove the request was made, not for the truth of its contents.

The applicant, charged with multiple sexual offences, applied for a stay of proceedings alleging abuse of process.

He argued that the Crown improperly adjourned his bail hearing, police violated his right to silence, and a correctional officer directed another inmate to assault him while in pre-trial custody.

The court found that while the bail adjournment was improper, it was done in good faith and did not warrant a stay.

The court also found no violation of the right to silence and insufficient evidence that the correctional officer directed the assault.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The applicants, charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy, and arson, brought a Charter application to exclude cell phone records obtained by police through "tower dump" production orders.

The applicants argued the warrants violated their section 8 rights due to their broad scope and lack of reasonable and probable grounds.

The court found that the initial tower dump warrants breached section 8 as they were based on speculation rather than reasonable grounds.

However, applying the Grant framework under section 24(2), the court declined to exclude the evidence, finding the police acted in good faith, the subsequent discovery of the specific phone numbers was inevitable due to a lawful "Mr. Big" confession, and society's interest in adjudicating a serious murder charge on its merits strongly favoured admission.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants, jointly charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and arson, brought a pre-trial motion seeking leave to challenge prospective jurors for cause based on pre-trial publicity.

The media coverage included sensationalized reports of an alleged attempted prison break by one of the applicants.

The court found that despite the passage of time, the prominence and ready access to the coverage on the internet created an air of reality that the publicity could potentially undermine a prospective juror's impartiality.

The application was granted, and specific questions were approved to be put to the jury pool.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder and arson following the discovery of his wife's charred body in their garage, applied to exclude a statement he made to police.

The court found that the two-and-a-half-hour police interview constituted an investigative detention, triggering the accused's Charter rights.

The police failed to properly inform the accused of his right to silence, the reasons for his detention, and his right to counsel, resulting in serious breaches of sections 7, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the statement under section 24(2), concluding that the breaches were deliberate and admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The offender was convicted of historic indecent assault against his daughter, who was between 7 and 9 years old at the time.

The Crown sought 18 months' custody, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children by a person in a position of trust.

The court rejected the defence's request for a conditional sentence and imposed 18 months' custody followed by two years' probation, along with SOIRA and DNA orders.