Michael Morris

The accused, charged with manslaughter and criminal negligence causing the death of his 21-month-old daughter, brought a pre-trial motion to exclude two statements he made to police.

He alleged breaches of his rights under ss. 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter, and argued the statements were not voluntary.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the accused understood his jeopardy, was not arbitrarily detained, and was provided reasonable opportunities to consult with counsel.

The court also found the statements were voluntary, as the accused possessed an operating mind and the conditions were not oppressive.

The statements were ruled admissible.

The applicant, charged with domestic assault and related offences, sought a bail variation under s. 520 of the Criminal Code to remove a no-contact condition and return to the family home.

The complainant supported the variation and recanted her initial allegations.

The court dismissed the application, citing a history of violence, the use of a weapon, a previous bail breach, and the transparent nature of the recantation.

The court emphasized the need to protect the complainant and maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, while ordering an expedited trial to mitigate the hardship of the bail conditions.

The two accused were charged with multiple counts of robbery and use of an imitation firearm following three street robberies committed in less than an hour.

The Crown's case on identity relied heavily on the testimony of the driver of the getaway vehicle, an accomplice charged separately.

The court applied the Vetrovec principles to scrutinize the accomplice's evidence.

Despite inconsistencies in the accomplice's attempts to minimize his own involvement, the court found his identification of the accused reliable and corroborated by the victims' descriptions.

Both accused were found guilty as co-principals or aiders and abettors.

The applicants brought an application alleging that the provincial and federal governments breached ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter by making decisions and implementing program changes which eroded access to affordable housing.

The respondents brought motions to dismiss the application on the grounds that it did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and that the issues raised were not justiciable.

The court granted the motions and dismissed the application, finding that s. 7 does not impose a positive obligation on the state to provide affordable housing, and the impugned decisions did not deny the applicants a benefit given to others under s. 15.

The court also held that the issues raised were not justiciable as they involved broad policy choices.