R. Morrow

In this criminal trial for harassment under s. 264(1) of the Criminal Code, the court considered whether surreptitious video recording of a complainant’s residence constituted “watching” under s. 264(2)(c).

Rejecting a narrow interpretation requiring continuous physical presence, the court adopted a purposive approach that accounted for technological surveillance and held the actus reus was complete when the accused intentionally installed and used a covert camera to capture the interior living space.

The court found the complainant was harassed and reasonably feared for her safety upon discovering the covert recordings in her home.

The court further held the mens rea was established because the accused would have been subjectively aware that covertly watching a person’s residence would cause harassment.

A finding of guilt was entered on Count #1.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for sexual assault, unlawful confinement, and voyeurism.

The convictions arose from an incident where the appellant invited a third party to participate in sexual activity with the blindfolded complainant without her knowledge, and surreptitiously recorded the encounter.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal in part.

The unlawful confinement conviction was quashed and an acquittal entered because the trial judge failed to consider whether the confinement was for a significant period.

The voyeurism conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered because the trial judge failed to consider whether the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The sexual assault conviction was upheld, as the trial judge made no errors in finding the complainant's consent was vitiated by fraud, and there was no ineffective assistance of counsel.

The defendant was charged with two counts of first-degree murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder, following a shooting that killed two victims.

The Crown alleged the defendant hired a contract killer to murder the victims' son, a drug dealer who worked for the defendant.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of the admitted killer, an unsavoury witness who had entered a plea deal.

The court applied the Vetrovec warning and found the witness's testimony required independent corroboration.

Concluding that the circumstantial evidence (cell phone records and GPS data) was weak and supported multiple innocent inferences, the court found the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for impaired operation of a motor vehicle, failing to comply with a demand, and dangerous driving.

The appellant argued that the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding his speed and that the arresting officer lacked lawful grounds to make a Drug Recognition Evaluation demand.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and concluding that the modified objective test for dangerous driving was met.

The court also upheld the lawfulness of the demands made by the officers.

The Crown brought a pretrial application under section 714.2 of the Criminal Code to allow the complainant to testify remotely from Mexico, or alternatively, for an adjournment of the trial.

The complainant, who was unvaccinated against COVID-19, travelled to Mexico shortly before the scheduled in-person jury trial and refused to return due to fears of being forced into vaccination.

The court dismissed the remote testimony application, finding it would be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice given the complainant's voluntary travel, the poor quality of the internet connection, and non-compliance with notice requirements.

However, the court granted the Crown's alternative request for an adjournment to allow the serious sexual allegations to be tried on their merits.

The accused was charged with stabbing the victim at a house party.

The victim, who was highly intoxicated, identified the accused as the stabber.

The defence called a third-party suspect who denied involvement.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the defence witness and the party host lacked credibility.

However, the court also found the victim's evidence unreliable due to his extreme intoxication (blood alcohol over 0.240) and inconsistencies in his testimony.

The Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt, and the charge was dismissed.