S. Latimer

The accused was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder after stabbing an unarmed victim at a party.

Prior to sentencing, the defence requested an inquiry into a post-verdict comment made by a juror to the victim's family.

The court declined to hold an inquiry, finding it would violate jury secrecy and that the comment did not suggest any impropriety.

On sentencing, the Crown sought 12 years of parole ineligibility while the defence sought 10 years.

After weighing the aggravating factors of the senseless, unprovoked killing against the mitigating factors of the accused's youth, lack of criminal record, and remorse, the court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment with parole ineligibility fixed at 11 years.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for assault against his spouse.

Fresh evidence was admitted on appeal, including a forensic computer analysis showing that a key audio recording relied upon at trial had been altered and was not an original recording from the device as claimed.

Additional police occurrence report evidence contradicted the complainant’s claim that she reported an assault at the time police attended the residence.

The appellate court found the complainant had manipulated evidence and provided false testimony, undermining her credibility and the reliability of the trial verdict.

Given the absence of a reasonable prospect of conviction, the court quashed the conviction and entered an acquittal rather than ordering a new trial.

The Crown appealed a trial decision that excluded computer evidence obtained under a search warrant in a child pornography investigation and resulted in an acquittal.

The trial judge had found multiple breaches of s. 8 of the Charter, including reliance on unverified NCMEC CyberTipline reports, failure to include disclaimers in the Information to Obtain, uncertainty regarding PhotoDNA use, and staleness of evidence due to delay.

The Superior Court held that the trial judge applied an incorrect legal standard by requiring verification for accuracy rather than assessing whether the information provided a credibly based probability sufficient for the issuing justice to grant the warrant.

The court found that NCMEC reports and Microsoft-generated data could constitute reliable hearsay supporting reasonable and probable grounds and that the time delay and investigative uncertainties did not negate the probability that computer artifacts or account evidence would remain.

The acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The accused was charged under s. 243 of the Criminal Code with disposing of the dead body of a child with intent to conceal its delivery.

The remains of a 36-week fetus were found in a bag on a balcony.

The forensic pathologist could not exclude the possibility that the fetus died in utero due to a self-induced abortion.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's interpretation of s. 243 in a previous appeal of this case, the court found that the Crown could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the child was likely to have been born alive, as the law does not apply to miscarriages or abortions.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with robbery, using an imitation firearm during the robbery, and possession of cannabis for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown relied primarily on the testimony of an accomplice who had already pleaded guilty in youth court.

The trial judge found significant inconsistencies between the accomplice’s testimony and that of the complainant, as well as concerns regarding identification evidence and the absence of stolen items in the accused’s residence.

These credibility and evidentiary deficiencies raised reasonable doubt as to the accused’s participation in the alleged robbery and firearm offence.

However, expert evidence and the circumstances of seizure established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed cannabis packaged for trafficking.