Maria Stevens

The applicant sought to exclude his statements to police on the grounds that his Charter rights were violated.

Police executed a search warrant at the applicant's home and questioned him in the kitchen without informing him of his right to counsel or the reasons for his detention.

The applicant was arrested and later provided a video-recorded statement at the police station after speaking with duty counsel.

The court found that the applicant was subjected to a psychological detention and that his rights under sections 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter were breached.

Although the statements were found to be voluntary under common law, they were excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter as the admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The three accused, Amandeep Jodha, Manjot Chadde, and Gurvir Deol, were charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon following a violent brawl.

The Crown's theory relied on identifying the perpetrators and establishing a common intention to bring weapons.

The court found all three accused not guilty, concluding that the Crown failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to the unreliability and internal inconsistencies of all witness testimonies, making it impossible to identify the perpetrators.

A joint application for a stay of proceedings based on s.11(b) Charter delay was dismissed as moot, though the court noted it would have been dismissed on its merits due to a combination of defence delay, inherent delay, and exceptional circumstances.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm to his former common-law spouse.

The Crown alleged that the accused intentionally slammed a washing machine door on the complainant's finger, causing a tear requiring five stitches.

The court found that while the accused deliberately slammed the door out of frustration during an argument, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to catch the complainant's finger or was reckless as to whether the door would injure her.

The accused was acquitted due to reasonable doubt regarding the element of intent.

Sentencing decision following convictions for sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching arising from prolonged sexual abuse of a child over an eight-year period.

The court treated as aggravating the offender's breach of trust, the victim's age, digital penetration, attempted intercourse, oral sexual contact, extortionate threats to secure silence, a prior sexual assault record, and the significant victim impact.

Applying the proportionality principle in s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code and relying on appellate sentencing authorities, the court held that a penitentiary sentence within the five-to-nine-year range was appropriate.

A five-year custodial sentence was imposed, concurrent on the second count, together with lifetime ancillary orders.

The accused was on trial for sexual assault and threatening death.

The complainant testified through a Punjabi interpreter.

During the trial, it became evident that the complainant was capable of testifying in English.

The court noted that the right to an interpreter under s. 14 of the Charter requires a necessity criterion to be met.

Because the use of an interpreter materially interfered with the court's ability to make credibility determinations, and the trial was still in its early stages, the court declared a mistrial so the complainant could testify in English with a stand-by interpreter.

The court declared a mistrial in a judge-alone criminal trial for sexual assault and threatening death.

The complainant, K.M., testified with a Punjabi interpreter, but it became evident during the trial that she had sufficient English proficiency.

This raised concerns about the necessity of the interpreter under Charter s. 14 and the trier of fact's ability to assess credibility through an interpreter.

The court found that a "needs" assessment for interpreter services was not properly conducted, and K.M. should have testified in English with stand-by interpreter assistance.

Given the trial's focus on credibility and the material interference of the interpretation filter, a mistrial was deemed the appropriate remedy to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

The accused applied to exclude evidence obtained from his home computer, arguing police unlawfully searched and copied files containing child pornography without first obtaining a warrant.

Officers attended the residence after the accused’s spouse reported discovering child pornography on a computer that was currently running and potentially encrypted.

Concerned that the presence of encryption software and the possibility of remote access could result in loss of evidence, police copied the files and seized the computer before obtaining a warrant several months later to conduct a full search.

The court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless seizure and copying of the files, as there was a risk of imminent loss or destruction of digital evidence.

The police actions were also found to fall within their lawful duties under the common law and s. 487.11 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant pleaded guilty to kidnapping with a firearm, aggravated assault, and related firearms offences.

He was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment with 1.5:1 credit for pre-sentence custody.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reduced the global sentence to 9 years to conform with the Crown's trial submissions, and granted 2:1 credit for pre-sentence custody, noting the lack of rehabilitative programs in remand.

The court dismissed arguments based on the parity principle and the youth of the offender, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for firearms offences.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 5 years (less pre-trial custody credit) for aggravated assault and possession of a firearm without a license.

He argued the trial judge erred by considering his previous plan to kill his wife as an aggravating factor, given he had pled guilty to aggravated assault in exchange for the Crown dropping an attempted murder charge.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, holding that the prior plan was a valid aggravating factor in this serious domestic assault involving a loaded rifle.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed for a robbery conviction.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge committed an error in principle by failing to advert to pre-sentence custody in her reasons.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence was reduced by 80 days.