Richard Fedorowicz

The applicant, convicted of voyeurism, publishing child pornography, and criminal harassment involving a minor, sought bail pending his conviction appeal.

The Crown conceded the appeal was not frivolous but argued detention was necessary in the public interest to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The motion judge found the grounds of appeal to be weak but granted bail, noting the applicant had been on house arrest for three years without breaches, posed no public safety risk, and risked serving most of his 30-month sentence before the appeal could be heard.

The applicant sought judicial review in the form of certiorari to quash an order granting the Crown access to her youth records.

The Crown sought the records because the applicant was proposed as a surety for an adult accused in a serious criminal matter.

The reviewing court found that the application justice, who had previously presided over the adult accused's preliminary inquiry, denied the applicant natural justice by relying on his own assessment of the strength of the Crown's case from that inquiry without giving the applicant notice or an opportunity to make submissions.

The court quashed the order, concluding that the result would not necessarily have been the same had a fair hearing been afforded.

The applicant brought a motion to stay his criminal charges, arguing that his right to a trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was violated.

The total delay was approximately 40 months.

The court deducted periods of defence delay and delay caused by the discrete exceptional event of the COVID-19 pandemic, bringing the net delay below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The court found that the defence failed to demonstrate meaningful and sustained steps to expedite the proceedings, and the application was dismissed.

The accused were charged with conspiracy to commit robbery based primarily on intercepted wiretap communications over a three‑day period.

The defence argued the conversations amounted only to discussion or negotiation about a robbery and did not constitute an agreement.

The court reviewed the elements of conspiracy under s. 465 of the Criminal Code, emphasizing that the actus reus requires a true agreement or meeting of the minds to commit an indictable offence, though not all operational details must be settled.

Interpreting the wiretaps in context, the court found the accused had reached an agreement to rob a man seen counting money, conditional on obtaining a weapon and locating the target.

The subsequent failure to obtain the weapon merely frustrated the plan and did not negate the existence of the agreement.

During a criminal trial, the court ruled on the admissibility of statements made by the accused and evidence obtained following his arrest for firearms and drug offences.

The accused alleged Charter breaches under ss. 8, 9, and 10(b), arguing the arrest lacked reasonable grounds and that police questioned him after he requested counsel.

The court held the arrest was supported by objectively reasonable grounds and the search incident to arrest was lawful, making the seized key admissible.

Spontaneous admissions of ownership of drugs were also admissible, though a statement about residence obtained through questioning after the right to counsel was asserted was excluded.

Responses given to a booking sergeant were excluded to preserve trial fairness, despite being obtained during routine booking procedures.