Michael Jones

The accused brought a pretrial application to quash a search warrant for his residence, arguing that after excising evidence obtained in breach of his s. 8 Charter rights, the redacted Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient evidence to support the warrant.

The court reviewed the redacted ITO and found that, while the direct evidence against the accused was less overwhelming than against his co-accused, the circumstantial evidence, coded text messages, and expert opinions of the affiant provided sufficient credible and reliable evidence to establish reasonable and probable grounds.

The application to quash the search warrant was dismissed.

The accused brought a pretrial application alleging multiple breaches of his s. 8 Charter rights during a police investigation into a suspected drug stash house.

The court found that the police's use of a continuously recording, installed video camera directed at the accused's residence without a warrant violated his reasonable expectation of privacy, though video recorded during lawful physical surveillance did not.

The court upheld the police's use of a dynamic entry and the clearing of outbuildings as reasonable for officer safety.

The seizure of gun parts, a crossbow, and a Rolex watch not listed in the warrant was justified under the plain view doctrine and s. 11(8) of the CDSA, but the seizure of other jewelry was found to be unreasonable.

The accused, a 50-year-old Aboriginal man with severe medical vulnerabilities, pleaded guilty to possession of percocets for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought 18 months to two years less a day in custody, while the defence sought a one-year conditional sentence.

Applying the principles from Gladue and Sharma, and taking judicial notice of the heightened risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic to incarcerated individuals, the court found that a conditional sentence was appropriate.

The accused was sentenced to a 12-month conditional sentence, including 45 days of house arrest, along with a weapons prohibition subject to a sustenance hunting exemption.

Police services applied to quash subpoenas duces tecum issued by a preliminary inquiry judge compelling production of police policy directives governing confidential informants.

The subpoenas were issued after the Crown had refused defence disclosure requests for the documents on grounds of irrelevance and informer privilege.

The Superior Court held that a preliminary inquiry judge lacks jurisdiction to determine disclosure applications, whether framed as first-party disclosure under Stinchcombe/McNeil or third-party production under O'Connor.

By issuing subpoenas that effectively compelled production of materials the Crown had declined to disclose and which were arguably held by third parties, the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded his jurisdiction.

The subpoenas were therefore quashed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault and sexual assault on several grounds, including inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, flawed pre-trial identification, an alibi that he was out of the country, discrepancies regarding his physical appearance, and the trial judge's reliance on prior inconsistent statements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly addressed the evidentiary issues and that any minor errors did not result in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.