L. Bird

During a dangerous offender sentencing hearing, the Crown tendered a forensic psychiatrist as an expert witness.

The offender and amicus curiae challenged the expert's qualifications, arguing he exhibited professional credibility bias.

A voir dire revealed the expert's reports contained numerous significant errors, including copying large sections from a report about a different offender.

The court found the expert demonstrated professional credibility bias by failing to objectively reconsider his opinions when confronted with these errors.

The court excluded the expert opinion evidence, concluding that the risks of admitting the evidence outweighed its benefits.

The applicant, charged with possessing a loaded restricted firearm and failing to comply with a recognizance, sought a bail review under ss. 520 and 525 of the Criminal Code.

He argued that a new release plan involving electronic monitoring, a formal Charter application regarding the search of his vehicle, and the Covid-19 pandemic constituted material changes in circumstances.

The court found that the pandemic was not a material change warranting release, but the strength of the s. 8 Charter argument and the addition of electronic monitoring to the release plan sufficiently mitigated the secondary ground risks.

The application was granted, and the applicant was released on strict conditions including house arrest and GPS monitoring.

The offender was convicted of production of marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking after being found acting as a gardener in a commercial grow operation with nearly 500 plants.

He brought a constitutional challenge arguing that the one-year mandatory minimum sentence under s. 7(2)(b)(iii) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act violated s. 12 of the Charter, primarily because it would result in his deportation.

The court dismissed the application, finding that a one-year sentence was within the appropriate range for the offence and was not grossly disproportionate for the offender or a reasonable hypothetical offender.

The five applicants were jointly charged with offences relating to a fraudulent enterprise involving staged automobile accidents.

They applied for severance under s. 591(3)(b) of the Criminal Code.

Four of the co-accused intended to run a defence of lack of knowledge, arguing they were duped by the alleged ringleader, Bajwa, and intended to adduce bad character evidence against him.

The court found that the existence of antagonistic defences and the general prejudice to the co-accused outweighed the desire to avoid multiple proceedings.

The court ordered that Bajwa be tried separately from the other four co-accused, who would be tried jointly.

The applicant sought costs against the Crown under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging misconduct for failing to disclose a police report related to officer misconduct.

The Crown brought a motion to summarily dismiss the costs application.

The court found no evidence of mala fides or intentional suppression of evidence by the Crown.

At most, the Crown made a good faith error in judgment regarding the relevance of the report.

The court concluded that the costs application had no reasonable prospect of success and granted the Crown's motion to dismiss it.

Several accused brought Garofoli applications seeking exclusion of evidence obtained through multiple Part VI wiretap authorizations in a large drug trafficking investigation.

They argued the affidavits failed to establish reasonable and probable grounds and improperly named them as known parties under s. 185(1)(e) of the Criminal Code.

The court held that one authorization related to a homicide investigation lacked sufficient grounds on the edited record and therefore violated s. 8 of the Charter; intercepted room‑probe communications from a residence were excluded under s. 24(2).

However, the court found that the principal drug trafficking wiretap authorizations were supported by reasonable grounds based on confidential informant information, surveillance, phone records, and associations among targets.

Applications to exclude evidence obtained under those authorizations were dismissed.

During a trial for conspiracy to traffic in controlled substances, the Crown sought to introduce ten recorded conversations obtained via a room probe.

The accused opposed the admission of the evidence, arguing the audio quality was too poor to be reliable.

Following a voir dire, the court found that eight of the recordings were largely inaudible and lacked sufficient context to permit a fair and reliable assessment of their substance.

Portions of two recordings were found to be sufficiently clear to meet the threshold test for admissibility, subject to the Crown satisfying the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule at trial.