Mary Cremer

Two accused were charged with offences arising from a robbery and shooting during a drug-related home invasion.

The Crown alleged the accused were two of three perpetrators who entered the victim’s apartment building and participated in the robbery.

The case turned on identification evidence, including a recognition-based dock identification, photo lineup results, surveillance video, and police recognition testimony.

The court found the dock identification unreliable and the witness’s photo lineup performance significantly undermined the Crown’s identification case.

The surveillance video and police recognition evidence were also insufficient to establish identity beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittals.

The Crown applied to designate the respondent a dangerous offender following his convictions for two separate, unprovoked, and brutal attempted murders of vulnerable women working alone in retail stores.

The court found that the predicate offences were serious personal injury offences and that the respondent's conduct demonstrated a pattern of repetitive, persistent, and aggressive behaviour with a substantial degree of indifference to the consequences.

Psychiatric evidence indicated a moderate to high risk of violent re-offending and a lack of insight into the triggers for his violence.

Concluding that there was no reasonable expectation that a lesser measure would adequately protect the public, the court designated the respondent a dangerous offender and imposed an indeterminate sentence.

The accused were charged with multiple offences following the theft of two motor vehicles and a subsequent police apprehension where officers fired approximately 60 shots at the vehicles.

The accused argued for a stay of proceedings, alleging their Charter rights were violated due to racial profiling and excessive use of force by the police.

The court found no evidence of racial profiling and concluded the police force, while perhaps objectively excessive in hindsight, was a reactive response to a perceived threat to their lives, thus not violating section 7 of the Charter.

The court acquitted the accused of assault with a weapon and attempted murder, finding the Crown failed to prove intent to strike the officers, but convicted the accused of dangerous driving, failing to stop at the scene of an accident, and theft-related charges.

Sentencing decision following convictions for numerous fraud‑related offences including theft over $5000, possession of property obtained by crime, extortion, intimidation, possession of devices for forging credit cards, fraudulent possession and use of credit card data, and forgery.

Police discovered sophisticated equipment used to manufacture fraudulent credit cards and identification, as well as extensive stolen credit card data.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record involving similar offences and prior custodial sentences, including a sentence in the United States.

The court emphasized the seriousness of organized credit card fraud and the importance of deterrence, while acknowledging limited prospects for rehabilitation.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global penitentiary sentence.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence seized during the execution of search warrants at a storage locker and his residence.

Police searching for stolen property discovered equipment used to manufacture fraudulent credit cards and seized it under s. 489(1) of the Criminal Code and the common law plain view doctrine.

The court held that large machines and items visible in an open drawer were lawfully seized because they gave rise to reasonable grounds to believe an offence had occurred.

However, the police exceeded their authority by searching closed drawers and cupboards without obtaining a further warrant, resulting in a breach of s. 8 of the Charter.

Applying the s. 24(2) test from Grant, the court concluded the breach was at the lower end of seriousness and the real evidence should not be excluded.

The applicant was stopped for a traffic violation and arrested based on erroneous CPIC information indicating he was breaching a curfew condition.

A subsequent search of his vehicle incident to arrest revealed a loaded handgun and oxycodone.

The Crown conceded breaches of the applicant's s. 8 and s. 9 Charter rights due to the unlawful arrest and search.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court found that while the police records management errors were serious, the evidence was highly reliable and discoverable by lawful means.

The court concluded that society's interest in adjudicating the serious firearms charges on their merits outweighed the impact of the breaches, and admitted the evidence.