Molly Flanagan

The appellants were convicted of first-degree murder based primarily on the testimony of a co-operating witness who was present during the shooting.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made three cumulative errors that rendered the trial unfair: providing an inadequate answer to a jury question about the absence of corroborative evidence, failing to correct improper statements made by the Crown during closing submissions, and improperly excluding a hearsay statement made by the key witness to his lawyer.

The Court ordered new trials for two of the appellants.

For the third appellant, the Court found the verdict unreasonable due to deeply flawed stranger identification evidence and entered an acquittal.

The Crown brought a pre‑trial application seeking admission of a photograph allegedly depicting a police officer assaulting a protester during the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto.

The image had been anonymously uploaded to a website and lacked metadata, raising concerns about provenance and possible manipulation.

Competing expert evidence addressed whether the photograph had been altered, but neither expert could confirm its authenticity or trace its origin.

Applying the established criteria for authenticating photographic evidence, the court held the Crown failed to establish fairness and absence of manipulation.

As a result, the photograph was not authenticated and was ruled inadmissible at trial.

The Crown sought to admit a videotaped prior inconsistent statement of a witness identifying the accused as responsible for several bank robberies.

The witness recanted or claimed memory loss during testimony, raising issues about the reliability and voluntariness of the prior statement.

Applying the framework from R. v. B.(K.G.) and R. v. Khelawon, the court examined whether the statement met the requirements of necessity and threshold reliability.

The court found that the witness’s evasive and contradictory testimony prevented meaningful cross‑examination and that the police had not adequately recorded critical interactions preceding the statement.

Despite some corroborating circumstances, the court held that the Crown failed to establish reliability on a balance of probabilities and refused to admit the statement for the truth of its contents.