Peter N. Fraser

Shemar Nelson was charged with possession of cocaine for trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime following a police operation.

The defence sought to exclude evidence based on alleged breaches of Charter sections 8, 9, and 10(b), and argued a lack of continuity for the seized items.

The court found no Charter breaches, ruling that the investigative detention, safety search of a satchel, and delay in advising counsel were justified by officer safety concerns and the circumstances.

The court also found the subsequent overholding of the accused was not arbitrary.

However, the court found significant discrepancies in the chain of custody and documentation of the seized evidence, including differing descriptions of items, lack of photographs, and items appearing/disappearing from the property attributed to the accused.

These issues created a reasonable doubt regarding the continuity of the cocaine and cash.

Consequently, the accused was found not guilty on all charges.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance and having a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg.

The defence alleged breaches of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter, arguing the arresting officer lacked reasonable grounds for the breath demand and arrest.

The court found that while the officer had a subjective belief of impairment, it was not objectively reasonable, thus constituting a breach of the accused's Charter rights under sections 8 and 9.

However, applying the R. v. Grant s. 24(2) analysis, the court determined that the Charter-infringing conduct was less serious, the impact on the accused was low (due to discoverability), and society's interest in adjudicating on the merits was high.

Consequently, the breath sample evidence was admitted.

The accused was found guilty of the over 80 charge, while the impaired operation charge was dismissed.

Kafi Ali was charged with multiple firearms and drug-related offences.

He brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his rights under sections 8 (unreasonable search) and 9 (arbitrary detention), seeking the exclusion of incriminating evidence under section 24(2).

The court found no Charter breaches, determining that the investigative detention was based on reasonable suspicion and was not racially motivated, and the subsequent arrest and search were lawful.

The defence conceded the elements of most offences if the Charter application failed, but disputed the charge of possession of property obtained by crime.

The court ultimately found Mr. Ali guilty of all charges, including possession of property obtained by crime, concluding that the Crown had proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, A.M., charged with non-consensual distribution of intimate images under s. 162.1 of the Criminal Code, brought a motion for direction regarding the admissibility of the complainant's prior sexual activity.

The defence argued that neither the statutory regime under s. 276 nor the common law regime from R. v. Seaboyer applied.

The Crown contended that s. 276 applied, or alternatively, Seaboyer.

The court ruled that s. 276 did not apply in the particular circumstances of this case, as the images depicted consensual activity and thus did not implicate an enumerated offence.

However, the court found that the common law Seaboyer regime did apply to the offence of distributing intimate images, requiring the defence to file a written application, supported by affidavit or testimony, detailing and justifying the proposed evidence.

The accused, Leonard Roberts, was charged with sexual assault.

The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of the complainant, R.L., who was highly intoxicated at the time of the alleged incident, and the accused's testimony, including his alleged lies to police.

The court admitted the complainant's spontaneous utterances to paramedics as narrative circumstantial evidence, finding them reliable despite inconsistencies with her trial testimony regarding minor details.

However, the court found the complainant's memory and perception were compromised by intoxication, raising reliability concerns.

The court also found the accused's testimony unreliable due to cognitive/linguistic deficits, concluding his admissions to police were not deliberate lies indicative of guilt.

Ultimately, the court was left with a reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt, leading to an acquittal.

Tyrone Matthews was charged with unlawful confinement, dangerous operation, and failing to stop for police.

The complainant, Kylee Jordan-Kalina, recanted her initial statements implicating Matthews at trial, claiming she was the driver.

The Crown successfully admitted her out-of-court statements.

The court dismissed the unlawful confinement charge but found Matthews guilty of dangerous operation and failing to stop for police, rejecting the complainant's trial testimony as contrived and accepting her out-of-court statements and other corroborating evidence.

The Crown applied to admit three out-of-court statements made by the complainant, Kylee Jordan-Kalina, as spontaneous utterances in a criminal trial for unlawful confinement, dangerous operation, and failing to stop for police.

The complainant had recanted her initial statement at trial.

The court applied the spontaneous utterance exception to the hearsay rule, which requires the statement to be made under stress or pressure such that the possibility of concoction is safely discounted.

The court admitted one statement (a phone call recorded by an in-car camera) due to the complainant's evident distress and the ongoing stressful events.

The other two statements (one to an officer with leading questions and no recording, and another made later at the police station) were excluded for lacking spontaneity and reliability.

The accused, Mylo Barreto, was charged with assault causing bodily harm, robbery, and unlawful confinement against Allan Howe, his landlord.

The incident arose from a rent dispute and pending eviction.

Howe testified to a prolonged, violent attack by Barreto and two friends, resulting in significant injuries and theft of money.

Barreto admitted causing injuries but claimed self-defence, denying the involvement of his friends, confinement, or theft.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both witnesses and the validity of the self-defence claim.

The court found Howe's testimony compelling and corroborated by physical evidence, while Barreto's self-defence claim was inconsistent with the extensive injuries inflicted and lacked credibility.

The court rejected Barreto's evidence and found the Crown proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving following a motor vehicle collision.

The central issue at trial was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol.

The court considered various indicia of impairment, including the collision circumstances, the defendant's unsteadiness, physical observations, and an utterance about alcohol consumption.

The judge found that the evidence, even when considered cumulatively, allowed for competing reasonable explanations and did not meet the high standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the charge was dismissed.

The accused, charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against a child complainant, brought an application under section 278.93 of the Criminal Code to admit a cell phone video recorded by the complainant's mother.

The video appeared to show the complainant recanting the allegations.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing the recantation was coerced.

The court applied the test under section 278.92(2) and found that the video had significant probative value that was not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

The court held that a fair determination of the issues required the evidence to be put to the complainant in cross-examination, and granted the application.