M. Luft

During a jury trial for sexual assault and sexual interference involving a minor complainant, the Crown called the complainant's mother to testify.

In response to a question from the Crown, the mother stated that she believed the allegations because her daughter would never lie about something like that.

The defence moved for a mistrial on the basis that this constituted inadmissible oath-helping evidence.

The court granted the motion, finding that the mother's statement caused irremediable prejudice to the accused that could not be cured by a limiting instruction to the jury.

The accused were charged with firearm and narcotic offences after police executed search warrants on a vehicle and a residence, discovering a handgun and drugs.

The court previously found that the search warrants were invalid because the information to obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable and probable grounds, violating the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

In this decision, the court applied the Grant framework under s. 24(2) of the Charter and concluded that the police conduct was grossly negligent and misleading.

Given the seriousness of the breach and the impact on the accused's privacy interests, the court excluded both the handgun and the drugs from evidence.

The applicants, charged with firearm and drug offences following the execution of search warrants, brought a Garofoli application to exclude the seized evidence.

Prior to step five of the application, they sought to amplify the Information to Obtain (ITO) based on cross-examination of the affiant and an email.

The court allowed certain amplifications to correct good-faith errors in the ITO, but declined to add omitted information, noting that omissions could still be raised during the substantive argument on the warrant's validity.

The applicants, charged with firearm and drug offences following the execution of search warrants, sought leave to cross-examine the affiant of the Information to Obtain (ITO) under step five of a Garofoli application.

The court applied the Garofoli test, assessing whether there was a reasonable likelihood that cross-examination would elicit testimony tending to discredit the preconditions for the warrants.

The court granted leave to cross-examine on specific issues, including the omission of information regarding the shooter's name and the use of conclusory statements in the ITO, but denied leave on several other grounds where cross-examination was unlikely to assist or where the issues were better suited for argument at the Garofoli hearing.

Four accused were jointly charged with offences relating to a loaded firearm discovered in a vehicle in which they were occupants.

Two accused faced additional counts of transporting, possessing, and controlling the firearm and related ammunition offences.

After the Crown closed its case, all accused sought directed verdicts of acquittal on the basis that the Crown had failed to establish a prima facie case of knowledge or control of the firearm.

The court held that mere presence in a vehicle containing a firearm, coupled with nervous behaviour and seat movements, was insufficient to establish knowledge or control beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly where another unidentified occupant fled the vehicle from the seat where the firearm was located.

Concluding that the circumstantial evidence could not permit a properly instructed jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the court granted directed verdicts and acquitted all accused.

The accused brought a Corbett application seeking to exclude portions of his criminal record from being used for impeachment if he testified at trial on charges including firearm and drug offences.

The court considered the principles under s. 12 of the Canada Evidence Act and the balancing test from R. v. Corbett regarding whether the probative value of prior convictions outweighs their prejudicial effect.

While credibility was central because the defence alleged police officers fabricated or moved evidence, the court held that admitting convictions similar to the charged drug and firearm offences would risk impermissible propensity reasoning.

The court therefore excluded all firearm and drug-related convictions but permitted other convictions, including offences involving dishonesty and disregard for court orders, to be put before the jury if the accused testified.

The Crown sought to admit statements made by the accused following arrest, while the accused applied to exclude them on the basis of alleged breaches of s. 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and lack of voluntariness.

The accused argued that police failed to properly provide right to counsel warnings and that subsequent questions improperly expanded the scope of the investigation toward a search of his residence.

The court found the officer’s evidence credible that the accused was cautioned and advised of his right to counsel before questioning and that the accused declined to contact counsel.

The statements were held voluntary and the questioning did not constitute a new investigative focus requiring renewed Charter warnings.

Even if a breach had occurred, exclusion under s. 24(2) would not be warranted.