K. Scott

The accused, charged with first-degree murder of his son, brought an application to exclude a video found on his cell phone.

The police searched the phone incident to arrest without a warrant.

The court found the search violated section 8 of the Charter because there was no urgency to justify searching the phone before obtaining a warrant.

However, applying the Grant framework under section 24(2), the court admitted the evidence, finding the breach was minor, the privacy intrusion was minimal, and the video was highly reliable and crucial to the truth-seeking function of the trial.

The court also dismissed the argument that the video's prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.

The accused, charged with the first-degree murder of his son, sought to exclude video-taped statements made to police on the basis that they were involuntary and obtained in violation of his Charter rights.

The accused argued that prior unrecorded interactions with police tainted the subsequent video-taped statements, and that police failed to properly advise him of his jeopardy for culpable homicide.

The court dismissed the application, finding no sufficient temporal or contextual connection between the unrecorded and recorded statements to taint the latter.

The court also held that the accused was not under genuine suspicion for murder at the time of the interviews, meaning the initial caution for failing to provide necessaries of life was adequate.

The statements were ruled voluntary and admissible for cross-examination.

The accused were charged with first degree murder arising from a shooting in a Toronto parking lot.

Prior to trial, multiple evidentiary motions were argued concerning hearsay statements of the deceased, references to one accused’s prior incarceration, rap videos and video clips allegedly amounting to confessions or demonstrating intent, gang expert evidence, weapons possession evidence, and alleged post‑offence conduct indicating consciousness of guilt.

The court applied principles governing hearsay admissibility, similar fact and bad character evidence, probative value versus prejudicial effect, expert evidence disclosure under s. 657.3 of the Criminal Code, and the law of post‑offence conduct.

Several items of Crown evidence—including rap videos, gang evidence, prior weapons conviction, and alleged consciousness‑of‑guilt conduct—were excluded due to minimal probative value and high prejudicial impact.

Limited evidence such as certain hearsay statements, a contemporaneous “locked and loaded” remark, and testimony that one accused possessed a revolver shortly before the shooting were admitted.