Michael W. Lacy

The appellant challenged a criminal appeal decision from the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The Court heard the appeal and delivered an oral judgment the same day.

It held that the appeal should be dismissed substantially for the reasons of the majority in the provincial appellate court.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, brought an application to exclude DNA and fingerprint evidence, arguing that police violated his s. 8 Charter rights by searching a public genetic genealogy database (GEDmatch) and seizing cast-off DNA without judicial authorization.

The court dismissed the application, finding the accused had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the public database search results.

Furthermore, applying horizontal stare decisis, the court held it was bound by prior decisions establishing that the seizure of discarded items for DNA analysis does not violate s. 8.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder following a second trial.

He raised six grounds of appeal, challenging the jury instructions on post-offence conduct and constructive first degree murder, the admission of his statements to police, the admission of a recanting witness's prior statement, the admission of intercepted communications with his former spouse, and the lawfulness of the wiretap authorizations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds.

The court found that while the trial judge erred in finding no independent evidence of fabrication regarding the appellant's alibi, the failure to give an O'Connor instruction did not prejudice him.

The court also held that spousal privilege under s. 4(3) of the Canada Evidence Act does not survive divorce.

The appeal was dismissed.

Three Toronto police officers sued the Attorney General of Ontario for negligence and misfeasance in public office, alleging that Crown Attorneys failed to properly investigate and defend against allegations of police misconduct made by an accused during a criminal trial, causing reputational harm to the officers.

The Attorney General moved to strike the claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The court struck the negligence claim, finding that while a prima facie duty of care might exist, it was negated by policy concerns regarding the diversion of Crown Attorneys from their primary duties and the potential chilling effect on prosecutorial discretion.

However, the court allowed the misfeasance in public office claim to proceed, finding that the plaintiffs had properly pleaded the necessary elements of deliberate and unlawful conduct.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittals on charges of sexual assault and sexual interference involving a person under sixteen.

The Crown argued the trial judge erred by misunderstanding the law of sexual assault, misapplying the law on corroboration, failing to properly apply the W.D. framework for credibility, and providing insufficient reasons.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the objective test for sexual assault, properly assessed the evidence, and provided adequate reasons for finding a reasonable doubt.