S. George Joseph

The accused brought an application under s. 520 of the Criminal Code seeking review of a detention order made by a justice of the peace.

The applicant argued that the doctrine of issue estoppel required the second bail court to follow an earlier decision releasing him on separate charges arising from related events.

The reviewing judge held that issue estoppel applies only where the identical issue was previously decided between the same parties.

Because the earlier bail hearing addressed a different charge and did not determine the risk assessment relating to the possession of stolen property offence, the issue had not previously been adjudicated.

The justice of the peace therefore committed no error of law in conducting a fresh bail analysis and ordering detention.

The accused was charged with making and possessing child pornography.

Police detained the accused for bizarre behavior and subsequently entered his home without a warrant, despite his explicit instructions not to do so, claiming exigent circumstances.

During the search, police discovered child pornography.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude the evidence.

The court found that the warrantless search violated the accused's s. 8 Charter rights, as there was no genuine urgency or threat to public safety justifying the entry.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, concluding that the serious Charter-infringing conduct outweighed the reliability of the evidence.

The Crown sought a Dangerous Offender designation for the accused following his guilty plea to two counts of aggravated assault and breach of probation arising from a violent stabbing incident.

The court found the accused met the statutory test for Dangerous Offender status based on a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour involving weapons and violence while under court supervision, coupled with substance abuse and demonstrated inability to restrain behaviour.

However, the court imposed a determinate sentence of 33 months imprisonment (less presentence custody credit) followed by an 8-year Long-Term Supervision Order rather than an indeterminate sentence, finding that with intensive treatment, anti-alcohol medication, and structured supervision, there was a reasonable expectation that public safety could be adequately protected.

The Crown sought to introduce a video-recorded statement from a deceased witness (S.D.) as hearsay evidence under the principled approach to establish the truth of its contents in a sexual assault trial.

The witness had observed events at his residence where the alleged assault occurred.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine admissibility.

While the Crown established necessity due to the witness's death, the court found that reliability could not be established.

The court identified significant concerns including the 24-day delay between the events and the statement, the possibility of collusion between the witness and the complainant, uncertainty regarding the witness's sobriety at both the time of the events and when giving the statement, and most critically, the witness's strong motive to fabricate evidence due to his affection for the complainant and disdain for the accused.

The court concluded that without the ability to cross-examine the witness on these critical points, sufficient trust in the truth and accuracy of the statement could not be placed.