3 total
Appeal dismissed; wiretap evidence properly admitted in civil trial to defeat malicious prosecution claim.
The appellant, a former police officer, was investigated for corruption and bribery.
Police obtained a wiretap authorization based on an affidavit that deliberately misdescribed a police agent as a confidential informant.
The appellant was charged criminally based on intercepted communications, but the charges were eventually withdrawn by the Crown due to anticipated Charter breaches regarding the wiretap.
The appellant then sued the investigators and police board for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and other civil wrongs.
The trial judge dismissed the action, admitting the wiretap evidence and finding that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charges.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the wiretap evidence was properly admitted in the civil trial to establish the truth of the grounds for the charges, and that the trial judge made no error in finding that the investigators had both subjective and objective reasonable and probable grounds.
The applicant was granted release pending appeal from a conditional sentence for historical offences.
The applicant sought release pending appeal from convictions for two counts of indecent assault against the daughters of his then-partner, committed approximately 50 years ago when the victims were approximately 9 and 13 years old.
The applicant received a conditional sentence.
The Crown opposed the release application, arguing the applicant failed to establish that his grounds of appeal were not frivolous and that immediate enforcement was necessary to maintain public confidence given the seriousness of the offences.
The motion judge granted the application for release, finding that the applicant's ground of appeal regarding the trial judge's admission of extraneous bad character evidence clearly surpassed the "not frivolous" criterion and that the reviewability interest outweighed the immediate enforceability interest.
Three-year sentence imposed for serious child pornography sharing and making offences.
Sentencing for convictions for possession of child pornography, five counts of making child pornography available through a peer-to-peer file-sharing network, and making child pornography through preserved online chat transcripts.
The court held that denunciation and general deterrence are the primary sentencing principles for child pornography offences, emphasizing the role of internet-based sharing in perpetuating abuse, expanding offender communities, and causing permanent harm to victims.
The court treated the offender's lack of record, career damage, lengthy delay short of a Charter breach, and likely deportation as mitigating factors, but found the breadth of sharing activity, repeated conduct, curation of the collection, and the presence of highly depraved material to be significant aggravating features.
A global sentence of three years' imprisonment was imposed, with ancillary DNA, lifetime SOIRA, section 161, and forfeiture orders.
