Morrie Luft

The accused was charged with attempted murder and firearms offences following a shooting outside a party venue.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the recognition identification evidence of a police officer who identified the accused as the shooter from poor-quality surveillance videos, based on a single prior traumatic encounter.

The court admitted the officer's recognition evidence but ultimately gave it little weight due to reliability concerns, including the poor quality of the images and the lack of distinctive features.

After conducting its own comparison of the accused with the video images, the court found reasonable doubt regarding the shooter's identity and acquitted the accused on all counts.

The applicant sought a bail review after being denied interim release on charges including break and enter, possession of a loaded firearm, and possession of fentanyl.

The applicant proposed a strict house arrest plan with electronic monitoring and two sureties pledging $30,000.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the bail review, finding that the proposed plan adequately addressed the secondary ground of public safety and that the tertiary ground did not require detention, as there was no evidence the firearm was used in the commission of the offences.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose following a violent altercation in a nightclub parking lot.

The incident began over a minor vehicle collision and escalated when the complainant armed himself with a box cutter and the accused retrieved a switchblade.

The court found that the accused acted in self-defence during the initial confrontations but committed a simple assault when he re-engaged the complainant after the threat had subsided.

The accused was acquitted of the weapons charges and aggravated assault, but convicted of the lesser included offence of simple assault.

The accused jointly applied under s. 24(1) of the Charter for a stay of proceedings on the basis that their right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) had been violated.

The overall delay between arrest and scheduled trial was approximately 999 days (nearly 33 months).

Applying the analytical framework from R. v. Morin, the court assessed waiver, reasons for delay, and prejudice.

After deducting defence and neutral delay, the court found approximately 550.5 days (about 18.08 months) of Crown and institutional delay, which was only slightly above the guideline range.

Given the seriousness of the charges and the finding that most prejudice arose from the existence of the charges rather than delay itself, the court concluded the accused had not established a Charter breach.