Melanie J. Webb

Akash Ghotra, having been found guilty of internet luring, applied to stay the proceedings on the basis of entrapment.

He argued that an undercover police officer, posing as a 14-year-old girl in an internet chatroom, provided an opportunity to commit the offence without a pre-existing reasonable suspicion or a bona fide inquiry.

The Crown contended that merely stating an age of 14 did not create an opportunity and that the officer was engaged in a bona fide inquiry in an area where such offences were likely.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the officer did not create an opportunity for internet luring, as the applicant initiated the conversation and directed it towards sexual matters.

Furthermore, the court held that the internet chatroom constituted an area where criminal activity was reasonably suspected, thus justifying the police operation as a bona fide inquiry and not random virtue testing.

The accused, Randeep Sandhu, brought a mid-trial motion seeking disclosure of a confidential informant's identity and a stay of proceedings, arguing the informant was either a police agent or a material witness.

The court conducted an in-camera hearing and an open-court hearing, ultimately finding that the informant was not a police agent and that the "innocence at stake" exception to informer privilege was not engaged, as Sandhu failed to demonstrate the informant was likely to provide evidence creating reasonable doubt about his innocence.

The motion was dismissed.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault following a stabbing incident.

Upon his arrest at an apartment, the police advised him of his right to counsel.

The accused declined to call a lawyer immediately, stating 'not right now.' The police then cautioned him and asked if he wished to say anything, prompting the accused to provide a spontaneous exculpatory statement claiming self-defence.

The accused sought to exclude the statement, arguing it was involuntary and obtained in violation of his ss. 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights.

The court found the statement was voluntary and that the police complied with their Charter obligations, as the accused's decision to delay contacting counsel did not trigger an immediate police duty to hold off questioning.

The statement was ruled admissible.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including impaired driving causing death and criminal negligence causing death, after driving the wrong way on a highway and causing a fatal head-on collision.

The accused argued that his drink had been spiked with a 'club drug' at a nightclub, resulting in involuntary intoxication and total memory loss.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as not credible and found that his erratic driving was consistent with his blood alcohol concentration of 148 to 173 milligrams.

The court concluded the accused voluntarily consumed alcohol and found him guilty on all counts.

The appellant, a police officer, was convicted of sexual assault after forcing a masseuse to perform oral sex while he was on duty.

He appealed his conviction and 15-month custodial sentence, arguing that his police memo-book notes were unlawfully seized in violation of his Charter rights and that the trial judge erred in assessing credibility.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in police notes, no violation of the right against self-incrimination, and no error in the trial judge's credibility findings or the sentence imposed.

The accused, a Level 3 certified figure skating coach with 30 years of experience, was charged with five counts of assault and one count of sexual assault against three complainants: A.M., T.B., and K.M.T. The charges arose from allegations of inappropriate physical contact and comments made during figure skating instruction and coaching relationships spanning from 1996 to 2011.

The Crown alleged the accused engaged in inappropriate touching of students' bodies during instruction, made inappropriate comments about their physical development, and engaged in grooming behavior.

The accused denied all charges, asserting that his physical contact with students was necessary and incidental to teaching figure skating skills, and that his comments were made in appropriate coaching contexts.

The trial involved six days of evidence and focused heavily on credibility assessments of the complainants, their parents, and the accused.

The accused applied to exclude intercepted communications between them from use in a search warrant information, wiretap authorization affidavit, and at trial, arguing the communications were protected by marital privilege under s.4(3) of the Canada Evidence Act.

The court held that marital communications privilege is testimonial in nature and does not prevent the interception of communications or their use in investigative affidavits, though they generally cannot be compelled in court testimony without the recipient spouse’s consent.

The accused further argued that limiting the privilege to legally married spouses violated s.15 of the Charter by excluding common-law partners.

The court found the accused had not established that their relationship was analogous to marriage and therefore they could not benefit from the privilege in any event.

The application to excise the communications was dismissed and the intercepted communications were held admissible.

The accused applied under ss. 462.34 and 462.341 of the Criminal Code for the release of $500,000 from seized currency subject to restraint and management orders to fund his legal defence in pending drug trafficking and murder proceedings.

The Crown and an intervening execution creditor opposed the application.

The court held that the applicant failed to establish that he had no other assets or means available and failed to demonstrate that no other person had a lawful ownership or possessory interest in the seized funds.

In particular, the intervenor held a registered restitution and civil judgment enforceable under the Execution Act, and another person potentially claimed an interest in the currency.

The statutory prerequisites for release of seized property were therefore not met.