M. Danielle Cunningham

The applicant, charged with obtaining sexual services for consideration, brought an application under s. 8 of the Charter to exclude text messages and identification evidence.

The police had photographed text messages between the applicant and the complainant on the complainant's phone with her consent, and showed her a single photograph of the applicant to confirm his identity.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages voluntarily shared by the recipient, and that the identification evidence was reliable recognition evidence rather than a tainted identification.

A father sought access to his six‑year‑old child after nearly five years of minimal or no contact and in circumstances where the mother failed to participate in the litigation and repeatedly frustrated prior access arrangements.

Evidence included a psychological assessment recommending only supervised contact due to concerns about the father’s emotional stability, parenting insight, and past substance abuse.

Applying the best interests test under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court emphasized the child’s right to know both parents while balancing safety concerns.

The court found that completely denying access would be inappropriate despite the lengthy absence of contact.

Transitional supervised access through a counselling service was ordered, with further court review to monitor progress.