Robyn Kendall Scott

The defendant, Daniel Lopez-Carter, was charged with being an accessory after the fact to murder.

The Crown alleged he assisted the perpetrator by disposing of the getaway vehicle (a stolen black Ford F150 pickup truck) the day after the murder.

The defence argued the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the Crown's theory in its opening address was too specific.

The court found the defendant guilty, concluding that he knew of the murder, was involved in disposing of the vehicle (either by driving it or a support vehicle), and did so with the purpose of assisting the perpetrator to escape justice.

The court rejected the defence's "stealth particulars motion" argument, affirming that the Crown's opening address does not bind the prosecution to specific means if the essential elements are proven and no unfairness results.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault on his wife.

The central issue was credibility between the complainant's account of two violent incidents and the accused's denial of any physical violence.

The complainant testified about a December incident involving sausages where the accused pushed her down the stairs and kicked her, and an October incident involving socks where the accused grabbed her by the neck from behind, causing scratches.

The accused testified that he did not use any physical force and characterized his wife as a frequent 911 caller who fabricated complaints.

The court found the complainant to be a credible, forthright witness whose evidence was logical, internally consistent, and reasonably explained her prior failure to report violence.

The court found the accused's testimony not credible, noting his inability to testify in a responsive manner, his attempts to trivialize his wife's complaints, and his controlling behaviour consistent with the complainant's account.

Both counts were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with Failing to Comply with Probation (x2), Break and Entry to a Dwelling, Threatening Death, Assault, Mischief to a Cellphone, and Assault Causing Bodily Harm.

The defence conceded the two probation breaches.

The Crown's case on the remaining charges rested entirely on the complainant's testimony regarding two incidents in November 2014 and February 2015.

The court found the complainant to be a reluctant but generally credible witness.

However, the court found significant inconsistencies in her account of the February 2015 incident, particularly regarding contemporaneous text messages that contradicted her trial testimony.

The court found the Crown had proven the probation breaches beyond a reasonable doubt but failed to prove the remaining counts beyond a reasonable doubt.

During a murder trial involving multiple accused, the Crown brought a motion asking the court to reconsider a prior evidentiary ruling admitting a hearsay statement from a former girlfriend of an alleged alternate suspect.

The Crown argued new evidence from two witnesses and digital communications demonstrated a strong motive for the declarant to fabricate the statement.

The court held that the new evidence constituted a material change in circumstances permitting reconsideration of the earlier ruling.

However, applying the relaxed threshold reliability standard applicable to defence evidence, the judge concluded the statement retained some reliability and should remain admissible.

The Crown was permitted to call reply evidence from the new witnesses to challenge the credibility and reliability of the hearsay statement.

In a multi‑accused murder trial, the Crown sought to introduce a PowerPoint presentation prepared by an Ontario Provincial Police analyst summarizing extensive cell phone records already entered in evidence.

Defence counsel objected, arguing the presentation was redundant, prejudicial, and effectively allowed the Crown to present its theory of the case twice.

The court held that the PowerPoint itself was not evidence but an illustrative aid reorganizing evidence already admitted.

Although useful and reliable, its probative value was outweighed by prejudice arising from duplication, significant trial time, and the unfair advantage of allowing the Crown to present its theory through a witness before closing submissions.

The court excluded the presentation from evidence but permitted the Crown to use it in closing argument and ordered the Crown to disclose the presentation to defence counsel in editable PowerPoint format.

During a joint first‑degree murder trial, concerns arose that the spouse of a juror had attended court proceedings and communicated limited information about the case to the juror via text messages and made comments in the courthouse hallway supportive of a police witness.

Following two judicial inquiries, the accused sought either a mistrial or the discharge of the juror on the basis of juror contamination and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court held that although the spouse’s conduct demonstrated poor judgment, there was no evidence that the juror discussed the case with the spouse or was influenced by her views.

Applying the presumption of juror impartiality and the reasonable apprehension of bias test, the court found no basis to conclude the juror could not remain independent and impartial.

The mistrial application and request to discharge the juror were denied, though the spouse was excluded from further attendance at the trial.

During a criminal jury trial, information emerged that the spouse of a juror had attended the proceedings and made comments supportive of a police witness, including remarks to the investigating officer.

The court had previously conducted an inquiry after learning the juror had received text messages from the spouse about events occurring in the courtroom.

Following new evidence from a detective about additional comments by the spouse, the court considered whether further inquiry of the jury was necessary.

Applying appellate guidance on allegations of improper juror contact, the court held that the potential taint of prejudice required a supplementary inquiry.

The judge directed that limited additional questions be put to the implicated juror to determine whether the spouse’s opinions had been communicated and whether they affected impartiality.

During a joint trial for first-degree murder and attempted murder, the jury reported that a juror's spouse had been attending the proceedings and texting the juror information about the case, which was then shared with other jurors.

Two of the accused brought an application for a mistrial.

The court conducted an inquiry, questioning each juror individually, and determined that the information imparted was innocuous, primarily concerning scheduling delays and a witness's appearance.

The court dismissed the mistrial application, finding that the improper contact did not cause actual prejudice or irreparably taint the appearance of justice and fairness.

During a joint murder trial involving five accused, one accused (Mylvaganam) sought to introduce an alternate suspect defence, which included propensity evidence against a co-accused (Carty).

The trial judge prematurely ruled on the admissibility of this propensity evidence without a full evidentiary record or complete submissions.

Carty brought an application for severance, arguing the premature ruling gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the ruling was premature, a fully informed reasonable person would not apprehend bias, as the error could be remedied by conducting a proper and fulsome voir dire on the propensity evidence.

During a multi‑accused murder trial, one accused sought leave to introduce alternate suspect evidence implicating an uncharged third party.

The proposed evidence consisted primarily of hearsay statements allegedly made by that third party to former partners confessing involvement in the offence.

The court considered the admissibility of the statements under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, focusing on necessity and threshold reliability.

The judge concluded that the utterances possessed sufficient reliability and could be admitted, provided the declarant was first called and denied making them in accordance with the K.G.B. procedure.

The court further held that related propensity evidence affecting a co‑accused could be admitted with appropriate limiting instructions.

In a multi‑accused murder trial arising from a home invasion in which one victim was killed and another survived, a co‑accused sought to exclude a text message sent on the day of the offence stating “To after work ok will be game time.” The moving party argued the text was an ambiguous fragment whose meaning could only be determined through speculation and should therefore be excluded under the probative value versus prejudicial effect analysis.

The court distinguished authorities dealing with incomplete overheard utterances, finding the text was a stand‑alone statement capable of interpretation when viewed alongside earlier communications among the accused.

When considered in context with prior text exchanges suggesting planning activity, the message was capable of supporting an inference relevant to the identity and involvement of the accused.

The court held the text possessed probative value that outweighed any prejudicial effect and declined to exclude it.