Sherif Foda

The accused, charged with sexual assault with a weapon and aggravated sexual assault, brought an application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code to adduce evidence of prior sexual activity with the complainant.

The accused argued the evidence was necessary to provide context for their relationship and to challenge the complainant's credibility, as their accounts of the incident and their prior relationship differed significantly.

The court allowed the application in part, permitting the defence to adduce evidence that the parties were in an intimate, sexual relationship prior to the alleged assault to challenge credibility and provide context.

However, the court prohibited the introduction of any details regarding specific past sexual encounters, finding such details irrelevant and highly prejudicial.

The accused, charged with sexual assault and other offences, brought a motion for directions to determine whether Facebook messages exchanged with the complainant constituted a 'record' under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code.

The defence sought to use the messages during cross-examination but argued they were not subject to the s. 278.92 admissibility regime because the complainant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in them.

The court adopted a procedure allowing the judge to review the messages without disclosing them to the Crown.

The court concluded that the complainant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the non-sexual messages sent to the accused, considering the content, the manner of communication, the adversarial nature of their current relationship, and the policy implications.

Consequently, the messages were not deemed a 'record,' and the accused was not required to bring an application under s. 278.93 before using them at trial.

The applicants brought a motion under s. 8 of the Charter challenging the installation of police video surveillance cameras in the hallways of their condominium buildings.

The police had installed some cameras with the consent of condominium management prior to obtaining a general warrant, and failed to disclose these prior installations when applying for the warrant.

The court held that the warrantless installation based on management's consent did not violate s. 8, as there is a diminished expectation of privacy in condominium hallways.

While the failure to disclose the prior installations breached the duty of full, fair and frank disclosure, the court found the omission was not material to the issuance of the warrant.

The motion was dismissed.