Sean Horgan

The accused, M.O., was charged with aggravated assault and firearms offences.

He brought a motion on a voir dire seeking to exclude fingerprint evidence and a derivative statement, arguing that the police conducted an unreasonable search in breach of his Section 8 Charter rights.

The police accessed his fingerprints, taken six years prior when he was a young offender for a charge that was later withdrawn, outside the access period specified in the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA).

The court found that the police unlawfully accessed the records, constituting an unreasonable search.

Applying the R. v. Grant factors, the court determined that the systemic institutional indifference to YCJA provisions and the high expectation of privacy for young offender records outweighed the societal interest in adjudicating the serious offence on its merits.

Consequently, the fingerprint evidence and the derivative statement were excluded.

The accused applied for a second bail review after a prior review had been dismissed by another Superior Court judge.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to review the original justice of the peace’s decision or only the earlier review decision, concluding that under s. 520(8) of the Criminal Code and the authority of Saracino, the review was limited to assessing the earlier judge’s decision.

The applicant argued there had been a material change in circumstances and that the earlier judge misapplied the test from St‑Cloud in light of subsequent appellate authority.

The court found that the alleged new evidence, including statements by a co‑accused during sentencing, was not credible or capable of affecting the bail determination and therefore did not constitute a material change.

The court further held that the prior reviewing judge made no material error in principle and that detention on primary and secondary grounds remained justified.

The accused pleaded guilty to a historical count of indecent assault against a child occurring between 1976 and 1982 in circumstances involving a position of trust.

The offences involved repeated sexual abuse of a very young child over several years and caused lasting psychological harm.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 18 to 24 months, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children.

The court found that although incarceration would normally be required, the accused’s advanced age and severe medical conditions created a substantial risk that imprisonment would endanger his life.

A conditional sentence with strict house arrest and probation was imposed to balance denunciation with compassion for the offender’s medical circumstances.