Jayme Lesperance

During a trial for first degree murder and attempted murder, a Crown witness recanted her previous statements and testified in chief that a third party named 'George' was with her at the time of the shooting, rather than the accused.

The Crown requested a ruling that the defence must bring a formal third party suspect application before cross-examining the witness on this issue.

The court ruled that no application was required, as the evidence was direct evidence of a third party suspect that had already been elicited by the Crown, establishing its own logical relevance without the need for a formal application.

In a pre-trial Charter motion arising from a first degree murder prosecution, the accused sought exclusion of evidence obtained from cell phones seized from a vehicle and from a residence.

The court held that defects in the initial Nissan warrants and the continuation of the search after withdrawal of charges against a third party did not establish a breach, but the delayed return to justice and prolonged detention of the phones without judicial authorization did breach s. 8.

Applying the Grant framework, the court nevertheless admitted the Nissan phone evidence because the impact of the reporting breach was negligible and the evidence was highly important to adjudication on the merits.

In contrast, the residential warrant was facially invalid, the seizure of a phone from a bedroom bag was not authorized by the warrant, s. 489(1), plain view, or search incident to arrest, and the resulting picture and video were excluded under s. 24(2).

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon after striking the complainant repeatedly with a knife in her vehicle.

The accused claimed self-defence, testifying that the intoxicated complainant became aggressive, punched the vehicle's interior, took her phone, and lunged at her.

The court found an air of reality to the defence and concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not reasonably believe she was under threat of force, or that her response was unreasonable in the circumstances.

The accused was found not guilty.

The accused was charged with multiple offences arising from a home invasion and robbery.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the recognition evidence of two victims who were familiar with the accused.

The court found the identification evidence unreliable due to discrepancies between the victims' trial testimony and their initial statements to police, as well as the brief time they had to observe the perpetrators.

Furthermore, an alibi witness raised a reasonable doubt as to the accused's whereabouts at the time of the robbery.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.