Robert S. Richardson

The accused, charged with firearms and drug offences, brought applications to cross-examine the affiant and sub-affiants of an Information to Obtain (ITO) a wiretap authorization, and a Garofoli application to exclude the intercepted communications.

The applicants argued that the ITO relied heavily on confidential informants and lacked sufficient detail to establish reasonable and probable grounds.

The court dismissed the application to cross-examine, finding no evidentiary basis to suggest it would elicit testimony discrediting the statutory preconditions.

The court also dismissed the Garofoli application, concluding that the redacted ITO and judicial summary provided sufficient evidence to establish reasonable and probable grounds to believe the interceptions would afford evidence of the offences.

Three defendants were charged with robbery with a firearm, break and enter, disguise with intent, possession of restricted firearms, and related offences arising from a home invasion.

The Crown's case relied on witness testimony, circumstantial evidence including proximity of time and place, vehicle identification, and the testimony of an accomplice.

The defence called a young person who had pleaded guilty to the same incident, whose testimony was found to be perjurious and unreliable.

The court convicted all three defendants on the remaining charges, finding that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt their involvement in the robbery and their prior knowledge that firearms would be used.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter after fatally stabbing his friend during a fist fight while intoxicated.

The Crown sought a sentence of 8 to 10 years, while the defence sought 6 to 8 years.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the offender's use of a knife, his prior conviction for violence, and being on probation, against mitigating factors such as his guilty plea, remorse, and youth.

The court sentenced the offender to 8 years in the penitentiary, less 16 months credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a net sentence of 6 years and 8 months.

The accused was charged with kidnapping, forcible confinement, uttering death threats, robbery, break and enter, and failure to comply with probation.

The Crown's case rested primarily on the testimony of the complainant, a 20-year-old student who was abducted at gunpoint from outside his school, robbed of personal items and money, and driven to his home where the assailants attempted to enter.

The defence challenged the credibility of the complainant and the reliability of his identification of the accused, arguing the story was fanciful and improbable.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness and accepted his identification of the accused based on prior acquaintance, the name "Bala" (a shortened form of the accused's first name), and the circumstances of observation during the prolonged incident.

The accused was convicted on all charges except forcible confinement, which was stayed as it merged with the kidnapping conviction.

The three accused were arrested while exiting an apartment building and entering a taxi, and each was found in possession of a loaded handgun.

They brought a Charter motion alleging violations of their rights under ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10, arguing they were unlawfully detained and searched.

The court found that the police had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative detention and pat search based on the totality of the circumstances, including the high-crime area, a recent shooting, and the accused's behaviour.

The Charter motions were dismissed, the firearms were admitted into evidence, and the accused were found guilty.

The accused were charged with importing approximately 30 kilograms of cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

They brought pre‑trial applications seeking exclusion of statements, cell phone evidence, and evidence obtained during a residential search, alleging multiple Charter breaches including violations of ss. 10(b) and 8.

The court found serious breaches including delays in implementing the right to counsel, police questioning prior to consultation with counsel, failure to ensure the accused understood their rights due to language barriers, and unlawful warrantless searches of a cell phone.

The unlawfully obtained phone evidence formed a central basis for a search warrant; once excised from the Information to Obtain, the warrant could not stand.

Applying the framework from R v Grant, the court excluded the accused’s statements and the cell phone evidence, resulting in exclusion of all derivative evidence from the residential search.

During a jury trial for first degree murder, the trial judge considered whether the Crown could advance two alternative theories of liability: that the accused was the shooter or that he orchestrated the killing by recruiting another individual to carry it out.

The issue arose after evidence concerning a white jacket containing gunshot residue and security footage suggesting another person had previously worn the jacket.

The defence argued the alternative theory lacked an evidentiary foundation and risked prejudicing the accused by providing the jury with an unsupported route to conviction.

Applying the “air of reality” test and relying on authorities concerning alternative routes to liability, the court held that there was sufficient evidence to permit the Crown to advance the second theory.

The judge concluded the jury could reasonably find the accused liable as either the shooter or a joint principal who arranged the killing.

The accused, charged with importing cocaine, brought pre-trial motions challenging the admissibility of their statements to police, the lawfulness of a cell phone search incident to arrest, and the validity of a search warrant for a residence.

The court found multiple breaches of the accused's s. 10(b) right to counsel, including delays in facilitating access, eliciting evidence prior to access, and failing to ensure comprehension given language barriers.

The court also held that the warrantless search of the accused's cell phone contents incident to arrest violated s. 8 of the Charter, as cell phones attract a high expectation of privacy requiring prior judicial authorization absent exigent circumstances.

The determination of remedies under s. 24(2) was deferred.

During a murder trial, the prosecution sought to admit rap lyrics recorded by the accused while in custody and later posted online.

The Crown argued the lyrics demonstrated adherence to a “code of silence” relevant to motive for the killing of a witness who had previously testified against the accused.

The defence objected on the grounds that the lyrics constituted prejudicial bad character evidence and that the evidence was introduced too late in the trial.

The court held that the lyrics were relevant and had probative value as a potential admission against interest and as evidence supporting the Crown’s motive theory.

The court concluded the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect and ruled the lyrics admissible.

The accused is charged with first-degree murder.

The prosecution sought to introduce a video re-enactment created by the police to demonstrate that a distinctive jacket found in the accused's residence could be the same jacket worn by the suspect in a poor-quality security video.

The defence objected to the admissibility of the re-enactment, arguing prejudice due to late disclosure and differing conditions.

The court held that the probative value of the re-enactment outweighed any prejudice from its late disclosure, and that differences in conditions could be addressed through cross-examination and jury instructions.

The video re-enactment was ruled admissible.

In a first-degree murder trial, the Crown sought to introduce evidence of prior discreditable conduct, specifically that the deceased had previously identified the accused and his brother as the perpetrators of an earlier attempted murder.

The charge against the accused was withdrawn after he spent 13 months in custody, and his brother was acquitted.

The Crown argued this history provided a motive for the murder.

The accused objected, citing issue estoppel and abuse of process.

The court ruled the evidence admissible to show motive, finding that issue estoppel did not apply because the Crown was not trying to prove the accused committed the prior offence, but rather that the accusation and resulting incarceration created animus.

The court also ruled on several related evidentiary issues, excluding highly prejudicial evidence such as the accused's tattoo and hearsay regarding retaliation.

In a first degree murder prosecution, the Crown sought to introduce evidence that the accused was involved in two fights while in custody with two individuals later implicated in the murder.

The Crown argued the evidence was relevant to demonstrate the nature of the relationship and loyalty between the accused and those individuals.

The court applied the rule against admitting prior discreditable conduct and assessed whether the probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect.

Because the defence admitted that the individuals were acquaintances and the proposed evidence added little probative value while posing a risk of propensity reasoning by the jury, the evidence was excluded.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence obtained from cell phones seized under a search warrant, arguing that the Information to Obtain failed to establish reasonable and probable grounds and lacked particularization that cell phones would be found in the residence.

The court held that the affiant reasonably believed a suspect seen on security video was using a cell phone and that police knowledge of the accused’s cell phone use supported the inference that such devices could contain relevant investigative information.

The court further found that it was a reasonable inference that a suspect who used a cell phone might keep it at his residence.

Reviewing the ITO as a whole, the court concluded that reasonable and probable grounds existed and that the warrant was valid.

The Charter application was dismissed.