Susan C. MacLean

The accused was charged with uttering threats to kill police officers by posting threatening messages on Facebook on October 4, 2016.

The Crown's case turned on two issues: whether the accused posted the messages and whether the messages constituted threats with the requisite intent.

The court found that the accused's identity as the poster was established through photographic evidence on the Facebook account, recognition evidence from a defence witness, and circumstantial evidence.

The court applied the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. McRae to find that the messages constituted threats of death to police officers under the objective test, and that the accused intended the threats to be taken seriously despite posting them to a limited Facebook audience.

The accused was convicted.

The accused was charged with impaired driving (by alcohol) and over 80 mg/100 mL of blood.

The trial involved multiple Charter applications including a section 11(b) unreasonable delay application, sections 8 and 9 arbitrary detention and unreasonable search applications, and a section 10(b) right to counsel breach arising from the inadvertent audiotaping of the accused's call with duty counsel.

The court found no breach of section 11(b) rights, no breach of sections 8 and 9 rights, but did find a breach of section 10(b) rights.

However, applying the section 24(2) analysis, the court admitted the breath test evidence.

The accused was convicted of impaired care or control but acquitted of the over 80 charge due to reasonable doubt regarding the reliability of the breath technician's evidence concerning the alcohol standard used to calibrate the Intoxilyzer.

The accused was charged with three sexual offences against his daughter: Sexual Assault (s. 271), Sexual Interference (s. 151), and Exposure (s. 173(2)).

The allegations involved taking photographs of the complainant's vaginal area, touching her vaginal and buttocks area with his penis, and masturbating in her presence while she was bathing.

The complainant, a 14-year-old with the mental capacity of an 8 or 9-year-old, testified that these incidents occurred when she was between 12 and 13 years old.

The accused denied all allegations.

The trial judge found the complainant to be a credible and compelling witness but determined that there were sufficient concerns about the reliability and weight of her evidence to prevent a considered and reasoned acceptance beyond a reasonable doubt of the allegations.

The accused was acquitted.

The Crown charged the defendant with operating a motor vehicle while his ability to do so was impaired by drugs on March 31, 2015.

The defendant had consumed multiple prescription medications including OxyNEO, Oxycodone, Clonazepam, and Gabapentin.

An off-duty officer observed erratic driving and called for assistance.

At the roadside, officers observed symptoms consistent with drug impairment.

A Drug Recognition Evaluator conducted Standard Field Sobriety Tests and a Drug Recognition Evaluation at the police station.

A urinalysis detected narcotic analgesics and benzodiazepines.

The defendant argued Charter breaches regarding the timing of the demand for field sobriety tests and the delay in providing rights to counsel.

The court found a technical breach of section 10(b) Charter rights but excluded no evidence under section 24(2).

The court convicted the defendant, finding that his ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by prescription drugs and that he possessed the requisite mens rea.

The accused was charged with publishing an intimate image without consent contrary to section 162.1 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the accused sent a screenshot of a video depicting the complainant engaged in sexual intercourse to the complainant's boyfriend and posted it on Facebook without consent.

The key issue was whether the image constituted an "intimate image" as defined in the Criminal Code.

The court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the image was intimate, as it depicted nudity and explicit sexual activity, was made in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the complainant retained that expectation of privacy at the time of the offense.

The accused was found guilty.

The offender pleaded guilty to 13 counts involving the sexual abuse of five child victims, including his niece from age 2 to 7, the creation of child pornography, and possession of child pornography.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation with an indeterminate sentence or, alternatively, a long-term offender designation.

The defence opposed both designations, arguing for a determinate sentence of 8-10 years.

The court found the offender met the criteria for dangerous offender status under sections 753(1)(a)(i) and 753(1)(b) of the Criminal Code based on a pattern of repetitive sexual behaviour and failure to control sexual impulses, with a likelihood of future harm.

The court imposed a determinate sentence of 13 years 6 months less pre-sentence custody, followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order, rejecting an indeterminate sentence but finding the offender's risk manageable in the community with appropriate conditions and treatment.

A young person was charged with manslaughter in the death of a four-year-old child.

The Crown sought to admit statements made by the accused to his father, who was acting as a police agent without the accused's knowledge.

The accused had previously been interviewed by police and had retained counsel who advised him not to make statements.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the statements made during a hotel meeting between the accused and his father, where the father was instructed by police to attempt to elicit information about the child's death.

The central issue was whether the use of the accused's father as a police agent to obtain statements constituted an abuse of process that would render the evidence inadmissible.

The accused applied to exclude text messages found on another person's cell phone, arguing that the police search violated her section 8 Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The police had searched the cell phone of an arrestee incident to her arrest for drug possession and found text messages from the accused relating to an alleged drug transaction.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the accused had standing to challenge the search but that the search was lawful as a cursory search incident to arrest.

The court also found that even if there had been a breach, the evidence would not be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with four counts: sexual assault and sexual touching (s. 151) of his daughter, and sexual assault and sexual touching of another young complainant.

The defence brought a s. 540(9) application seeking permission to cross-examine the two young complainants regarding evidence the Crown intended to tender under s. 540(7) at the preliminary inquiry.

The Crown opposed cross-examination on grounds that it would cause trauma to the young witnesses.

The court granted the application, permitting cross-examination on specific areas of inquiry deemed relevant to the defence's preparation and the discovery function of the preliminary inquiry, while implementing protective measures including closed-circuit television testimony to minimize trauma.

At a preliminary inquiry, the defence sought to cross-examine the complainant, a young witness, on her videotaped statement regarding allegations of sexual assault by her foster father.

The court considered whether to permit cross-examination under section 540(9) of the Criminal Code.

The judge granted the application in part, permitting cross-examination on specific areas including the contents of the statement, physical possibility of the alleged acts, genesis and motive for the complaint, delayed disclosure, a prior false complaint, a diversion contract, and limited questioning regarding mental health issues.

The judge declined to permit cross-examination regarding school misbehaviour, finding it too remotely relevant.

The decision balanced the complainant's vulnerability as a young witness against the accused's right to make full answer and defence.