Pamela Zbarsky

The accused was charged with publishing an intimate image without consent.

At the close of the Crown's case, the defence moved for a directed verdict of acquittal, arguing there was no direct evidence the accused posted the images online and the circumstantial evidence was insufficient.

The court found an inferential gap between the accused's possession of the images and their appearance on the internet, concluding that a properly instructed jury could not reasonably infer guilt.

The motion for a directed verdict of acquittal was granted.

The Crown and the two accused brought several pre-trial motions ahead of a re-trial for murder and aggravated assault arising from a shooting at a house party.

The court ruled on the admissibility of various pieces of evidence, including post-offence conduct, a photograph of the deceased, a lead fragment, ammunition, and black socks with gunshot residue.

The court also dismissed a Charter application challenging a search warrant, finding the accused lacked standing as he had abandoned the apartment.

Finally, the court denied the accused's request to sit at counsel table, ordering them to remain in separate prisoner's docks with leg belts due to significant security concerns and antagonistic defences.

The applicant, charged with seven counts of fraud over $5,000, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing that the 75-month delay from the laying of charges to the anticipated end of trial was unreasonable.

The applicant also sought a stay for abuse of process under s. 7, alleging the criminal charges were used to extort civil restitution, and sought to exclude forensic accounting evidence due to alleged conflicts of interest.

The court dismissed the abuse of process and conflict of interest claims, finding the police conducted an independent investigation.

However, the court granted the s. 11(b) application, finding that the Crown's obstinate refusal to disclose 90 boxes of relevant documents caused over three years of Crown and institutional delay.

Concluding that the delay was unreasonable and caused prejudice to the applicant, the court stayed the charges.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, sought to exclude a videotaped statement made to police, arguing it was involuntary and obtained in breach of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel.

The court found the statement was voluntary, as there were no threats, inducements, or oppressive circumstances.

However, the court held that the police breached the accused's s. 10(b) rights by failing to provide him with an immediate opportunity to consult counsel upon arrest, despite facilities being available.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that admitting the statement would bring the administration of justice into disrepute due to the seriousness of the breach and its impact on the accused's rights.

The statement was excluded.

The applicant, charged with tax fraud, brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter seeking a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The total time from the laying of charges to the anticipated end of the trial was approximately 85 months.

The court applied the Morin framework and found that the delay was not unreasonable given the extreme complexity of the case, the voluminous electronic disclosure, the involvement of multiple co-accused, and the applicant's waiver of earlier trial dates to retain her preferred counsel.

The application was dismissed.