Melanie Webb

The Crown sought to admit statements made by the accused during a police interview following his arrest for child pornography offences.

The accused argued the statements were involuntary and that his rights under sections 7 and 10(b) of the Charter were breached, particularly when police asked for his cell phone password without restating his right to counsel.

The court found the statements were voluntary, noting the accused had an operating mind and was not subjected to oppressive conditions or inducements.

The court also held that asking for a cell phone password in these circumstances was a routine question that did not require a further opportunity to consult counsel.

The statements were ruled admissible.

The accused brought a pre-trial motion seeking a stay of proceedings, alleging a violation of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay from the laying of charges to the anticipated end of trial was 99 months.

The court found that the accused had actively evaded arrest in Central America for over four years, characterizing this pre-extradition period as defence delay.

Further deductions were made for defence-requested adjournments and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The net delay was calculated at 24 months, which fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The motion for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with multiple counts of robbery alongside a co-accused, applied for severance on the basis that a joint trial would infringe his right to be tried within a reasonable time.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, jury trials were suspended, causing significant delay.

The applicant was willing to re-elect for a judge-alone trial, while the co-accused was not.

The court granted the severance application, finding that while most factors favoured a joint trial, the potential injustice caused by the delay and mutually inconsistent elections warranted severance.

Four offenders with no prior criminal records were sentenced for their roles in a sophisticated commercial cocaine trafficking operation involving 43 kilograms of cocaine.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as paramount principles for large-scale cocaine trafficking.

The directing mind received 12 years, a fully committed participant received 11 years, a trusted courier received 10 years (less pre-trial credit), and a minor participant whose vehicle was used received 6 years.

A forfeiture order was also made for the vehicle used in the offence.

The applicant, charged with internet luring of a child after communicating with an undercover police officer posing as a 13-year-old, brought an application challenging the constitutionality of sections 172.1(3) and (4) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant argued that the presumption of age and the requirement to take reasonable steps to ascertain age violated sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the provisions do not create a reverse onus or require the accused to disprove an element of the offence.

The court held that requiring an accused to exercise due diligence by taking reasonable steps to ascertain age does not violate the principles of fundamental justice or the presumption of innocence.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual assault arising from an incident involving his employee.

He argued the trial judge improperly presumed the complainant’s truthfulness, misapprehended evidence, and failed to properly apply the credibility framework in R. v. W.(D.).

The court rejected these arguments and upheld the conviction, finding the trial judge’s credibility findings and reliance on corroborative text message evidence were open on the record.

However, the sentencing judge erred by relying on unproven medical diagnoses in the victim impact statement and by treating the nature of the touching (over or under clothing) as irrelevant to sentence.

The appellate court set aside the custodial sentence and imposed a conditional sentence in the community.

Five police officers were convicted of attempting to obstruct justice, and three of them were also convicted of perjury, arising from a warrantless search of a drug suspect's apartment and subsequent false memo book entries and testimony to conceal the timing of the search.

The Crown sought penitentiary sentences of three to four years, while the defence sought non-custodial sentences.

The court considered the serious breach of trust and the need for denunciation and deterrence, but also weighed significant mitigating factors, including the catastrophic impact of the prolonged 14-year investigation and proceedings on the officers' lives, careers, and health.

The court concluded that a penitentiary term was not warranted and imposed a 45-day conditional sentence (house arrest) for each offender.