Soloman Friedman

The accused was charged with escaping lawful custody, various firearm offences, and possession of cocaine.

The court excluded evidence of the accused's identity and the cocaine found, due to Charter breaches by police, specifically the failure to provide s. 10(a) and (b) rights immediately upon detention and the unreliable basis for arrest (purported "odour of marijuana").

However, evidence of discarded earbuds, which contained the accused's DNA and linked him to a loaded handgun found nearby, was admitted.

The court reasoned that the accused's flight and abandonment of the earbuds broke the chain of causation between the initial Charter breaches and the discovery of this evidence, and that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in abandoned items.

Consequently, the accused was acquitted of escaping lawful custody and cocaine possession but found guilty of the firearm-related charges.

The judge also emphasized the critical need for updated police training on detention powers and Charter rights.

This consolidated appeal addressed the admissibility of evidence obtained through a wiretap authorization granted in 2016 for a 2009 murder investigation.

The Court of Appeal found that the authorization was improperly granted due to a lack of reasonable and probable grounds, as the affidavit failed to establish a credible-based probability that interceptions would yield evidence of the long-dormant homicide or that other investigative procedures were unlikely to succeed.

The court emphasized that a generic investigative plan and unsupported inferences of continued association among targets after several years were insufficient.

Consequently, the interceptions constituted a serious breach of Charter s. 8 rights.

Applying the Grant framework, the court upheld the exclusion of the evidence under Charter s. 24(2) due to the seriousness of the state conduct and the significant impact on privacy interests.

The appeals from conviction were allowed, and acquittals were entered, while the appeals from acquittal were dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault with a weapon and unlawful confinement following a trial before a judge sitting without a jury.

The trial judge stayed convictions for sexual assault and assault with a weapon, applying the principles in Kienapple v. The Queen.

The appellant appealed on three grounds: misapprehension of evidence, excessive judicial intervention depriving him of a fair trial, and uneven scrutiny of evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no material misapprehension of evidence, no deprivation of a fair trial despite judicial interventions, and no uneven standard of scrutiny applied to the evidence.

The accused, a leading expert in animal brucellosis employed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), pleaded guilty to one count of breach of trust and ten regulatory offences.

The breach of trust involved his commercialization of brucellosis diagnostic test kits using intellectual property owned by the CFIA through a company established in China from 2006 to 2010.

The regulatory offences arose from his arrest on October 24, 2012, when he was found attempting to board a flight to China with 17 vials of brucella bacteria improperly packaged in his carry-on luggage.

The court imposed a two-year custodial sentence, rejecting the defence's request for a conditional sentence despite the accused's exemplary background, advanced age, serious medical conditions, and low risk of recidivism.

The court found that general deterrence and denunciation were the predominant sentencing principles required by the legislative objectives of the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act and the Export and Import Permits Act.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing death, operation of a motor vehicle with over 80 mg of alcohol in blood causing death, and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, arising from a fatal head-on collision on Highway 17.

The Crown sought to admit expert evidence from three Ontario Provincial Police collision reconstruction officers: Constable Kelly (Level 3 Technical Traffic Collision Investigator), Constable Hewitt (Level 4 Accident Reconstructionist), and Constable Kern (Level 4 Accident Reconstructionist and regional lead).

The defence objected on grounds of bias, lack of independence, partiality, and lack of competence.

The court conducted an extensive voir dire on the admissibility of expert evidence, examining the independence, objectivity, and qualifications of each officer.

The accused was charged with two counts of discharging a firearm and seven other firearms offences in relation to the shooting of a victim in July 2012.

The Crown's case rested entirely on the testimony of an unsavoury witness, a career criminal with a lengthy record who claimed to have been present at the shooting.

The victim testified that he did not see his shooter and could not identify the accused.

The court found the unsavoury witness's testimony unreliable due to his criminal history, his admission of perjury, contradictions with physical evidence, and direct contradiction with the victim's testimony.

The court acquitted the accused of all charges, finding insufficient evidence to meet the Crown's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of assault causing bodily harm against a seven-year-old adopted daughter contrary to Section 267(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown sought 45 to 60 days imprisonment plus 12 months probation.

The defence sought a conditional discharge with probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 15 months probation, finding that while a discharge would be contrary to the public interest given the serious nature of the assault and the victim's age, imprisonment was not necessary given the accused's guilty plea, remorse, lack of prior record, and positive community standing.

The sentence balanced denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation.