M. Cole

During a murder trial, the Crown sought to introduce two pieces of evidence: an internet search conducted by an associate of the accused shortly after the shooting, and a video found on the associate's phone depicting the accused brandishing a firearm 11 days prior to the murder.

The court ruled the internet search inadmissible, finding its limited probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

However, the court admitted the video as prior discreditable conduct, concluding it was highly probative on the central issue of identity and its prejudicial effect could be mitigated by jury instructions.

The applicant, a young person charged with second-degree murder and firearms offences, brought a Charter application alleging violations of his rights under sections 10(a) and 12 during his arrest.

The police executed a search warrant using a dynamic entry and a violent struggle ensued when the applicant resisted arrest, resulting in officers punching him multiple times to gain control and seize a loaded firearm.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the section 10(a) right to be informed of the reasons for arrest did not accrue until the applicant was safely detained, which was delayed by his own actions.

Furthermore, the court held that the force used by the police was reasonable and justified under the circumstances, resulting in no section 12 violation.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, sought to exclude a photograph taken of him surreptitiously by a police officer while he was seated in a courtroom for an unrelated matter.

The accused argued the photograph violated his rights under sections 7 and 8 of the Charter.

The court found no Charter breaches, noting there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public courtroom and no state compulsion involved.

However, the court exercised its residual discretion to exclude the photograph because the officer violated section 136 of the Courts of Justice Act, which prohibits taking photographs in a courtroom without judicial authorization.

The young person, charged with second degree murder, brought a Charter application challenging the validity of a search warrant executed at his residence.

He argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) failed to establish he resided at the address, the warrant was overly broad, the search of seized cell phones occurred outside the warrant's time limit, and the affiant deliberately misled the issuing justice.

The court dismissed the application, finding sufficient surveillance evidence linked the young person to the residence, the seizure of multiple phones was necessary, the forensic examination of the phones did not need to occur within the warrant's entry window, and there was no evidence of deliberate deception by police.

The young person, charged with second-degree murder, brought a Charter motion alleging a breach of section 8 rights regarding the search of a co-accused's mobile phone.

The applicant sought to exclude photographic and video evidence found on the device.

The court held that the applicant lacked standing, as there was no subjective or objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in images taken by another person in a group setting.

Furthermore, the court found the search warrant was validly issued based on reasonable and probable grounds.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown applied to have the respondent designated a Dangerous Offender following his convictions for overcoming resistance by choking, uttering a threat to cause bodily harm, forcible confinement, and sexual assault causing bodily harm.

The court found that the predicate offences were serious personal injury offences and that the respondent constituted a threat to the public due to a pattern of repetitive, persistent, and aggressive behaviour, as well as a failure to control his sexual impulses.

Concluding that a determinate sentence followed by a long-term supervision order would not adequately protect the public, the court designated the respondent a Dangerous Offender and imposed an indeterminate sentence.

The offenders were sentenced for their roles in an unprovoked and fatal beating of a stranger.

Patrick Smith was convicted of second degree murder and assault, and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a 12-year parole ineligibility period.

Matthew Moreira was convicted of manslaughter and robbery, and was sentenced to a total of 13 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court considered the brutal nature of the attack, the offenders' backgrounds, and the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The accused was charged with three counts of criminal harassment and one count of failing to comply with a probation order after repeatedly asking a 13-year-old girl to come to his apartment and swearing at her.

The court found that the accused did not repeatedly follow the complainant or engage in threatening conduct.

However, the court found the accused guilty of criminal harassment by repeatedly communicating with the complainant, as his conduct caused her to reasonably fear for her safety.

The accused was also found guilty of breaching his probation order to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

The offender was sentenced for multiple offences including attempting to procure a person into prostitution, breaches of a s. 810.2 recognizance, breaches of probation, and possession of stolen property.

The most serious offence involved attempting to recruit a 16‑year‑old into prostitution while subject to a recognizance intended to prevent serious personal injury offences.

The court emphasized the offender’s extensive criminal record involving violence, prostitution-related offences, and sexual offences against minors, as well as repeated breaches of court orders.

After crediting 23 months of pre-trial custody on a 1:1 basis, the court imposed an additional two years’ imprisonment followed by a three-year probation order with extensive supervisory and non-association conditions.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime firearms prohibition and a DNA order.