M. Webster

The applicants sought certiorari to quash an order committing them to stand trial for attempted murder and related offences concerning an unidentified passenger in a taxi.

They conceded there was sufficient evidence to commit them regarding the identified passenger, but argued there was no evidence they targeted the unidentified passenger.

The reviewing court found that circumstantial evidence, including a plural racial slur and continued shooting after the identified passenger was hit, provided the requisite scintilla of evidence to support the committal.

The application was dismissed.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking to exclude a firearm found on his person during a search incident to arrest.

Police officers approached a parked vehicle to investigate a suspected Liquor Licence Act offence after observing open beer cans in plain view.

The accused argued his ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) Charter rights were breached by the investigation, his detention, and his subsequent arrest for drug offences after cocaine was found on the driver.

The court dismissed the application, finding the police lawfully investigated the liquor offence, the initial questioning did not constitute a detention, and the officers had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused based on a constellation of facts.

The offender was found guilty of trafficking in crack cocaine and simple possession of crack cocaine.

The court considered the offender's lack of a prior criminal record, her employment history, her role as a caregiver for her mother, and the fact that her s. 10(b) Charter rights were breached by police delay in facilitating access to counsel.

Emphasizing the principles of denunciation and deterrence while acknowledging the strong mitigating factors, the court imposed a blended sentence consisting of a 90-day intermittent jail sentence for the trafficking charge and an 18-month conditional sentence for the possession charge.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual exploitation, and assault against a 14-year-old complainant.

The court found that the accused groomed the complainant by providing him with marihuana, cigarettes, and a place to stay, thereby establishing a position of trust.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as incredible and internally inconsistent, applying the W.(D.) test.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The young person was tried for first degree murder as a party to a targeted shooting.

The Crown alleged the young person acted as a lookout and getaway driver for the principal offender, who had previously been convicted of the murder.

Relying on surveillance videos, cell phone records, and witness testimony, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the principal offender committed the planned and deliberate murder.

The court further found that the young person drove the principal offender to and from the scene, was present during the shooting, and intended to assist in the murder.

The young person was found guilty.

During a trial for first degree murder, the Crown sought to admit two statements made by the young person accused to the police: a spontaneous utterance upon arrest and a videotaped statement at the police station.

The court found the videotaped statement was made voluntarily and in full compliance with section 146 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, rendering it admissible.

However, the spontaneous utterance was ruled inadmissible because the police failed to advise the accused of his rights under the YCJA immediately upon arrest, despite having a reasonable opportunity to do so.

The young person, charged with first-degree murder, brought a motion to exclude evidence obtained from multiple search warrants and a warrantless search of his cell phone incident to arrest.

The court held that the young person had standing to challenge the seizure of text messages from third-party cell phones, as text messages carry a reasonable expectation of privacy akin to telephone conversations.

However, the court upheld the validity of the search warrants.

Although the warrantless search of the young person's cell phone breached section 8 of the Charter, the court declined to exclude the evidence under section 24(2), finding the breach inconsequential.

In a judge-alone trial for first degree murder involving a young person, the prosecution sought to admit text messages showing the accused's involvement in planning robberies with firearms.

The defence argued the messages constituted inadmissible prior discreditable conduct.

Applying the principles from leading authorities on similar fact and discreditable conduct evidence, the court held that such evidence may be admitted where its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect.

The messages were found relevant to the accused’s knowledge of planned criminal activity and to rebut any innocent explanation for association with a co‑accused on the day of the murder.

Because the trial was before a judge alone, the risk of misuse was reduced.

The text messages were admitted for a limited purpose.