R. Poirier

The applicant, charged with drug and weapons offences, brought an application for standing to challenge the execution of search warrants at two properties and warrantless searches of common areas and via covert camera surveillance.

The court applied the Edwards test and found the applicant had no reasonable expectation of territorial privacy in either the 'trap house' or the 'safehouse', as he was not a tenant, had minimal connection to the properties, and lacked control over the spaces.

The court also found no reasonable expectation of informational privacy regarding the camera surveillance of a public area.

The application for standing was dismissed.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings, arguing his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter was violated.

The court found that the accused's change of counsel and his delay in re-electing or waiving his preliminary inquiry constituted defence delay.

Deducting this defence delay from the total delay brought the net delay below the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The accused, a volunteer firefighter, was charged with arson and conspiracy to commit arson after an acquaintance set fire to an abandoned home.

The Crown alleged the accused planned the fire with the acquaintance via social media and phone calls.

Applying the W.(D.) framework for credibility, the court found the accused's version of events raised a reasonable doubt, particularly because he took a call from the acquaintance on speakerphone in the presence of his girlfriend.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The Crown brought a pretrial motion to admit fingerprint evidence obtained during a prior investigation of a break-in for which the accused was previously acquitted.

The Crown argued the evidence was necessary for the narrative of the police investigation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the prejudicial effect of admitting evidence of prior discreditable conduct far outweighed its probative value, as it risked the jury engaging in impermissible propensity reasoning.

The court permitted the Crown to lead only a neutral statement regarding the reopening of the investigation.