Sonia Colombe Beauchamp

The applicant brought a motion to determine the timing of an application to declare section 172.1 of the Criminal Code unconstitutional under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicant sought relief under section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The court dismissed the motion and determined that the constitutional challenge should be heard after the conclusion of the trial, if necessary.

The court applied the two-policy framework from R. v. DeSousa, which discourages fragmentation of criminal proceedings and requires a factual foundation for constitutional challenges.

The accused, Abel Hailu, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence obtained through alleged breaches of his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights, specifically concerning police takeover of the complainant's phone for text messaging, his arrest, strip search, and search of his residence and electronic devices.

The court found that the accused did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages with the complainant, who was a stranger and alleged victim of a sexual assault and kidnapping.

Therefore, no s. 8 breach occurred regarding the text messages, and the subsequent arrest was lawful.

The court also found no s. 8 breaches regarding the strip search or the search of his residence and electronic devices, as these were conducted reasonably and based on valid warrants.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

His Majesty the King brought an application for certiorari and mandamus to challenge a trial judge's declaration of a mistrial in a domestic violence case.

The respondent argued against the remedies and raised a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court found that the trial judge's intemperate and disparaging remarks towards counsel and the respondent created an appearance of unfairness and a reasonable apprehension of bias, thereby rebutting the presumption of judicial impartiality.

Consequently, the court declined to remit the matter back to the original trial judge for further consideration.

Following a guilty plea to aggravated assault, a Gardiner hearing was conducted to determine disputed aggravating facts for sentencing.

The Crown alleged forcible removal of clothing, choking, and blows to the ribs.

The court found that the forcible removal of the victim's pants and shoes was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but the allegations of choking and blows to the ribs were not proven to the requisite degree due to reasonable doubt and unreliability in the victim's account.

The defendant was charged with two counts of mischief to private property under section 430(4) of the Criminal Code for installing a concealed webcam in a condominium apartment that he leased and sublet to two women.

The defendant claimed the women were not in lawful occupancy and therefore had no right to lawful enjoyment of the property, and alternatively, that he acted with colour of right to protect his property.

The court found that the women were in lawful enjoyment of the residential premises despite the technical breach of lease terms, that privacy is a fundamental aspect of lawful enjoyment of a home, and that the defendant's installation and operation of the hidden camera constituted a wilful interference with that enjoyment.

The defendant's claim of colour of right was rejected as neither honest nor reasonable.

The defendant was found guilty on both counts.

The defendant brought a Charter section 11(b) application seeking a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay in trial.

The defendant was arrested on December 2, 2011, for mischief to property, causing a disturbance, and assault causing bodily harm arising from an incident at a Toronto bus station.

The trial was scheduled for July 2-3, 2013, approximately 19 months after the Information was sworn.

The court found that the Crown and police were responsible for approximately 14 months of delay through incomplete disclosure, failure to respond to defence counsel communications, Crown non-attendance at scheduled proceedings, and inconsistent positions on procedural requirements.

The court granted the stay, finding a violation of the defendant's right to trial within a reasonable time.