N. Weinstein

The accused, an inmate at Collins Bay Institution, was charged with possession of cannabis for the purpose of distribution and possession of contraband after 2.2 kilograms of 'shatter' and two cell phones were found in the ceiling void above his cell.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on the location of the contraband and expert evidence regarding the 'inmate code' to argue the accused must have known about the items.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew the items were there, noting significant gaps in the evidence, such as the lack of forensic evidence, the unlocked nature of the cells, and the unknown parameters of the ceiling void.

The accused was found not guilty.

In a judge-alone criminal trial involving allegations that a high school teacher touched three 15-year-old students in intimate areas during math instruction, the Crown sought count-to-count admission of similar fact evidence.

Applying the similar fact framework, the court held the allegations of two complainants were sufficiently similar, independent, and probative on actus reus, intentional touching, and sexual context to outweigh prejudice, but excluded the third complainant's evidence from similar fact use because of reliability concerns.

On the merits, the court found the thigh touching of one complainant and the thigh and breast touching of another were intentional and objectively sexual, supporting convictions for sexual assault under s. 271.

The court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the touching was for a sexual purpose under s. 151, and entered acquittals on the sexual interference counts.

The counts relating to the third complainant were dismissed because reliability concerns created a reasonable doubt.

The accused applied to exclude evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant at their residence, alleging the warrant was invalid and the search violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

They argued the information to obtain relied excessively on confidential informants whose reliability and motivations were insufficiently disclosed, and that the information failed to establish reasonable grounds linking the residence to drug trafficking.

The court reviewed the information to obtain under the Garofoli standard and held that the issuing justice had a sufficient evidentiary basis to authorize the warrant.

Surveillance evidence, corroborated informant information, and covert entries into a related suspect’s residence collectively established reasonable and probable grounds.

The applications to exclude the seized evidence were therefore dismissed.