Marco Sciarra

The Crown appealed the dismissal of its application for certiorari and mandamus after a preliminary inquiry judge discharged the respondents on first degree murder and committed them for second degree murder.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that there was no evidence of planning and deliberation.

However, the Court found the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded his jurisdiction by determining whether the victim was unlawfully confined to the degree required for constructive first degree murder under s. 231(5)(e), rather than leaving that question to the jury.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the preliminary inquiry judge.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on five gun-related charges.

The trial judge had excluded a seized firearm and a videotaped statement under s. 24(2) of the Charter after finding the respondent was arbitrarily detained during a pretextual traffic stop contrary to s. 9, and his right to counsel was violated under s. 10(b).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's finding of a pretextual stop was a factual determination not subject to appellate review, and there was no basis to interfere with the exclusion of evidence under the Grant framework.

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample on December 29, 2010.

The Crown alleged that a police officer made a lawful demand for a breath sample under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code, which the accused refused.

The key issues were whether the Crown must prove actual care or control of the vehicle to establish a valid demand, whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to make the demand, and whether the accused possessed the necessary mens rea to commit the offence.

The court found that following 2008 amendments to section 254(2), the officer's reasonable suspicion of care or control is sufficient, not proof of actual care or control.

The officer had reasonable suspicion based on the tow truck driver's identification and the circumstances.

The accused clearly understood the demand and intentionally refused to comply.

The accused was found guilty.

Sentencing decision following convictions for sexual interference involving a 14‑year‑old complainant, assault with a weapon, uttering threats, and breach of probation.

The court considered the offender’s extensive criminal record, commission of the offences while subject to a probation order, and the young age of the complainant as aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s developmental delays, unstable upbringing, and relatively young age.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence given repeated breaches and prior violent offences, the court imposed a custodial sentence with subsequent probation and several ancillary orders.

The three accused were charged with 32 armed robberies of gas stations and convenience stores.

Following their arrest after a foot pursuit, they were held for several hours before giving videotaped confessions.

The accused sought a stay of proceedings alleging police brutality, and challenged the admissibility of their statements and physical evidence seized.

The court dismissed the stay application, finding no evidence of police brutality, and upheld the lawfulness of the arrests and search warrants.

However, the court ruled the statements inadmissible because the Crown failed to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt, largely due to the police's failure to video-record the critical 'pre-interviews' where the accused allegedly waived their right to counsel and agreed to confess.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving, arguing that his continued detention after a lawful traffic stop was arbitrary under s. 9 of the Charter, and that the breathalyzer technician's observations of his impairment should have been excluded under s. 24(2).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the initial detention was lawful under s. 216(1) of the Highway Traffic Act and the continued detention was justified to investigate his dangerous driving.

The court held that the technician's observations were not conscriptive evidence and did not arise from a Charter violation.

The appellant appealed her conviction, arguing the issue of bolus drinking.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the summary conviction appeal judge on the issue and dismissed the appeal.