Raymond Wong

The accused was charged with multiple historical offences spanning 1995 to 2001, including manslaughter, bank robbery, car bombing, and two counts of first-degree murder.

The Crown's case relied heavily on confessions the accused made to an undercover officer and a police agent during a 'Mr. Big' operation in 2018-2019.

The court carefully assessed the reliability of these confessions, finding them compelling, detailed, and corroborated by independent evidence.

The accused was found guilty of the robbery of Henrietta Knight (but acquitted of her manslaughter due to a gap in medical evidence regarding causation), the TD Bank robbery, the car bombing of David Allan's vehicle, and the first-degree murders of Richard Kimball and Stephen St. Denis.

During a trial for robbery, the defence sought to cross-examine a police officer about other suspects identified early in the investigation to raise a reasonable doubt about identity.

The Crown objected, arguing the defence needed to establish relevance and admissibility first.

The trial judge ruled the questioning impermissible, finding the proposed evidence lacked logical relevance and invited mere speculation.

Applying the framework from R. v. Grant, the court held that the defence must establish a sufficient connection between the crime charged and the third-party suspect before pursuing such cross-examination.

The Crown applied to admit hearsay statements from the deceased victim and the post-mortem report of an unavailable pathologist in a manslaughter trial.

The court admitted the victim's statements, finding they met the criteria for spontaneous utterances and the principled exception to the hearsay rule, with sufficient markers of threshold reliability.

However, the court excluded the pathologist's report, concluding that the inability to cross-examine the expert on his baldly stated opinion regarding the cause of death would cause significant prejudice to the accused, outweighing its probative value.

The Crown brought a pre-trial application to admit statements made by the accused during a nine-month undercover police investigation involving a police agent and an undercover officer.

The accused was charged with three homicides, a bank robbery, and a car bombing.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Hart and found that the statements met the threshold for reliability, their probative value outweighed their prejudicial effect, and the police conduct did not amount to an abuse of process.

The statements were ruled admissible.

The applicants, charged with arson and production of controlled substances, sought a Rowbotham order for state-funded counsel at their upcoming preliminary hearing after being refused Legal Aid.

The court found that while the applicants met the first criterion of being refused Legal Aid, there was uncertainty regarding their financial means due to support from family and friends.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the application on the third criterion, concluding that representation at a preliminary hearing is not essential to a fair trial, and that a Rowbotham order at this stage is only available in exceptional circumstances.

The accused struck and killed a highly intoxicated pedestrian who was wandering on Highway 401 after being abandoned by a taxi driver.

The accused was charged with impaired driving causing death and 'over 80' causing death.

While the Crown proved the accused was impaired and had a blood-alcohol level over the legal limit, the court found the accused was not the legal cause of the death.

The pedestrian's unpredictable presence on the live lanes of the highway created an unavoidable hazard.

The accused was acquitted of the 'causing death' offences but convicted of the included offences of impaired driving and operating a vehicle while 'over 80'.

In a pre-trial motion, the Crown sought to admit two statements made by the accused to police, while the defence alleged Charter breaches under ss. 8, 9, and 10 regarding the statements and the warrantless seizure of the accused's computer.

The court found both statements were voluntary and the product of an operating mind, rejecting the accused's claims of confusion due to illness and medication.

The court also dismissed the Charter applications, finding no change in jeopardy requiring a restatement of rights, and concluding that the warrantless entry and seizure of the computer were justified by exigent circumstances to prevent the destruction of evidence.