Michael David Edelson

The defendant was charged with nine offences arising from a tumultuous marital relationship: uttering threats to cause death, three counts of assault, wilful damage to property, criminal harassment, and three counts of voyeurism.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the credibility of the complainant and her children.

The defendant denied all allegations and asserted the complainant fabricated evidence to destroy him.

The court found the complainant generally credible despite her delayed reporting and attempts at reconciliation.

The defendant was found guilty of assault on three dates, two counts of voyeurism, but acquitted on the threat charge, property damage charge, and criminal harassment charge.

The voyeurism convictions were upheld despite the defendant's public good defence, as the court found no objective evidence that the surreptitious recordings served any public purpose.

The accused was charged with impaired operation and refusing to comply with an approved instrument breath demand following a traffic stop on Highway 417 in Ottawa.

The court conducted a blended Charter and voluntariness voir dire to determine whether the stop and detention were lawful, whether reasonable and probable grounds existed for arrest and the breath demand, and whether the accused's section 10(b) rights to counsel were violated.

The court found that while the stop and investigative detention were lawful based on common law authority to protect public safety, the arrest and breath demand were unlawful as the officer lacked both subjective and objective reasonable and probable grounds.

The court also found serious violations of the accused's section 10(b) rights through breaches of the hold-off principle, privacy requirements, and unilateral termination of legal consultation.

Evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused pleaded guilty to instructing Gary Saikaley to commit an indictable offence under section 202(1) of the Criminal Code for the benefit of a criminal organization contrary to section 467.13(1).

The accused was the head of an organized bookmaking operation in Ottawa that operated illegal sports gambling websites.

The operation involved three individuals and three websites through which bettors placed wagers on sporting events.

The accused voluntarily withdrew from the enterprise in early 2012.

The court sentenced the accused to 26 months imprisonment and determined that parole eligibility would be determined in accordance with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act rather than imposing the mandatory 50% parole ineligibility threshold.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing death, operation of a motor vehicle with over 80 mg of alcohol in blood causing death, and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, arising from a fatal head-on collision on Highway 17.

The Crown sought to admit expert evidence from three Ontario Provincial Police collision reconstruction officers: Constable Kelly (Level 3 Technical Traffic Collision Investigator), Constable Hewitt (Level 4 Accident Reconstructionist), and Constable Kern (Level 4 Accident Reconstructionist and regional lead).

The defence objected on grounds of bias, lack of independence, partiality, and lack of competence.

The court conducted an extensive voir dire on the admissibility of expert evidence, examining the independence, objectivity, and qualifications of each officer.

The accused applied for severance from two co‑accused in a terrorism conspiracy prosecution so that he could be tried separately in provincial court rather than jointly before a superior court jury.

The court considered the discretion to order separate trials under s. 591(3) of the Criminal Code and the factors governing severance where multiple accused are charged.

The evidence against the co‑accused involved extensive wiretaps, surveillance, and complex terrorism‑related allegations expected to require months of trial time, while the case against the applicant relied primarily on a single intercepted conversation and limited corroborative evidence.

The court found that a joint trial would create significant prejudice due to the disparity in the evidence and the risk that the jury would improperly associate the applicant with highly prejudicial evidence admissible only against the co‑accused.

Severance was therefore necessary in the interests of justice to ensure a fair trial.

Two Ottawa police constables were charged with assault causing bodily harm after taking an intoxicated man to the ground during a street response.

The Crown relied heavily on eyewitness testimony from two civilian witnesses who observed the incident from across the street.

The court found the civilian witnesses' evidence to be extremely unreliable due to credibility issues, inconsistencies, memory problems, bias, and potential collusion.

The court found that the officers lawfully used force in self-defence and in the execution of their duties under the Criminal Code when they took the intoxicated man to the ground after he made aggressive arm motions toward them.

The charges were dismissed.

A police sergeant was charged with sexual assault for conducting a strip search of a detainee in police custody.

The detainee, arrested for public intoxication, became violent and assaultive during a pat-down search, kicking and injuring a female cellblock attendant.

The sergeant subsequently cut off the detainee's shirt and bra using safety scissors while she was restrained on the floor.

The Crown alleged the strip search was retaliatory and conducted without lawful authority.

The defence argued the search was justified by exigent circumstances and conducted for valid law enforcement purposes.

The court found the search was justified under section 25 of the Criminal Code based on the constellation of exigent circumstances, including the detainee's violent and assaultive behaviour, the need to complete the search for weapons and contraband, and the practical impossibility of waiting for another female officer.

The charge was dismissed.

The Crown brought a motion seeking a ruling permitting cross-examination of a police sergeant on his prior testimony given at a separate trial where he testified as a Crown witness.

The sergeant was subsequently charged with sexual assault.

The central issue was whether the sergeant's prior testimony was compelled and therefore protected by section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court held that the testimony was compelled both because the sergeant was a compellable witness called by the Crown and because he was statutorily compelled to attend court under the Police Services Act and police policy.

The court rejected the Crown's argument that section 13 rights are diminished for police officers and dismissed the Crown's application.