Shailaja Nadarajah

The applicant sought certiorari to quash warrants authorizing forensic searches of his cellphone following charges arising from a political protest that disrupted an off-campus university event.

The court held that the ITO did not establish reasonable and probable grounds to believe the phone would contain evidence of the investigated offences, as the asserted conspiracy rationale was conclusory and the limited evidence of cellphone use was too remote and contextually weak.

The court further held that the warrant lacked sufficient particularity because it authorized analysis 'based upon' the offences, listed sweeping data categories, and imposed no temporal limits.

Both search warrants were quashed, with leave to the respondent to seek a stay.

The court considered whether Jheidon Serieaux, convicted of first-degree murder, should be found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) under section 16 of the Criminal Code.

After a bifurcated hearing, the court found that Mr. Serieaux suffered from schizoaffective disorder at the time of the offence, with persistent psychotic symptoms, and that he was not malingering.

The court preferred the evidence of Dr. Komer and Dr. Grimes over Dr. Gojer, concluding that Mr. Serieaux was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of his act or know that it was morally wrong.

Mr. Serieaux was found NCRMD and remanded to the Ontario Review Board.

The court acquitted Nicol Oliver White of sexual assault, finding that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant, Z.E., did not consent to the sexual activity in question.

The decision turned on the credibility and reliability of the evidence provided by both the complainant and the accused, as well as corroborating evidence from a third party witness.

The court found material inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence and accepted the accused’s version of events as raising a reasonable doubt.

The appellant, H.S., appealed convictions for sexual assault and assault against his ex-girlfriend, raising three grounds: the trial judge's dismissal of an application to reopen the case to cross-examine the complainant on an alleged inconsistency in her Victim Impact Statement (VIS), the dismissal of a s. 276 application to introduce evidence of their sexual relationship, and a flawed credibility analysis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no material inconsistency in the VIS, upholding the s. 276 ruling as the evidence lacked probative value beyond prohibited inferences, and affirming the trial judge's credibility assessment as entitled to deference.