Thompson Hamilton

The accused was charged with multiple firearm offences after a prohibited handgun was found under the front passenger seat of a vehicle he was driving.

The case turned on circumstantial proof of knowledge and control, including proximity to the firearm, the degree of its visibility, the presence of alleged firearm-related items in the centre console, and the accused’s departure and flight when tactical officers approached.

Applying the circumstantial evidence framework from Villaroman and the principles governing after-the-fact conduct, the court held that guilt was not the only reasonable inference available.

The court further held that a reasonable alternative explanation for the accused’s flight, including fear arising from the reality of anti-Black racism and police interaction, had to be considered.

The Crown failed to prove knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted on all counts.

The applicant, charged with assault with a weapon, brought a Charter s. 8 application to exclude evidence seized from his cell phone pursuant to a search warrant.

The applicant argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained deliberate falsehoods regarding a witness claiming the applicant filmed the assault.

The court found the officer made a careless error in attributing the statement to the wrong witness, which did not amount to bad faith but required excision of the impugned paragraphs.

Without those paragraphs, the ITO lacked grounds to authorize a search for photographs and videos.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court excluded the photograph and video evidence, finding the police's failure to provide accurate information undermined the prior authorization process.

During a murder trial involving a Mr. Big undercover operation, the Crown sought to introduce statements the accused made to an undercover officer about his prior involvement in the cocaine trade.

The defence objected, arguing the evidence was highly prejudicial bad character evidence.

The court applied the framework for propensity evidence and found that the evidence was highly probative to the jury's assessment of the reliability of the accused's confession, as it provided context regarding his sophistication and vulnerability to inducements.

The court ruled the evidence admissible, concluding its probative value outweighed the risk of prejudice, which could be managed with a limiting instruction.

The respondent was charged with careless driving.

During a court appearance where the respondent intended to plead guilty to an amended charge, the justice of the peace noticed the informant's name was missing from the information and quashed it on her own motion.

The Crown applied for certiorari and mandamus.

The Superior Court found the justice of the peace committed jurisdictional errors by raising the motion herself, failing to consider whether an amendment would prejudice the respondent, and refusing to allow extrinsic evidence to cure the defect.

The application was allowed, the order quashing the information was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Provincial Offences Court.