SuJung Lee

The defendant brought a motion to adjourn a criminal trial to pursue a third-party records application under s. 278.3 of the Criminal Code, related to historical sexual assault allegations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defence had not provided sufficient case-specific evidence to establish the likely relevance of the records, beyond mere speculation, as required by s. 278.3(4).

The judge emphasized the high privacy expectations of complainants and the public interest in trial efficiency, balancing these against the accused's right to full answer and defence.

The appellant, Ferhat Tekin, appealed his conviction for human trafficking of a person under the age of 18, among other offences.

He argued that the trial judge's factual findings were insufficient to establish the specific intent to exploit the complainant.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge accurately applied legal principles and that the finding of intent to exploit was amply supported by the record, including evidence of the appellant's manipulative conduct and the complainant's fear for her safety.

The court reiterated that where exploitation is established, inferring the accused's purpose to exploit is usually straightforward.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, brought a Garofoli application challenging a production order for his cell phone records, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained significant errors and omissions violating section 8 of the Charter.

The court found that while the affiant made several errors due to inexperience and negligence, there was no intent to mislead.

After excising the errors and amplifying the ITO, sufficient reliable evidence remained to justify the production order.

The court concluded there was no section 8 violation and noted that, even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would be admitted under section 24(2) of the Charter.

In a pre-trial motion for a first-degree murder case, the Crown sought to admit several pieces of evidence.

The court admitted antemortem statements of the deceased and evidence that one of the accused was a marijuana dealer, finding the latter's probative value in establishing narrative and identity outweighed its prejudicial effect.

However, the court excluded rap lyrics found on the other accused's phone, ruling that their limited probative value as circumstantial evidence of participation was outweighed by significant moral and reasoning prejudice.