Susan M. Chapman

A high school teacher was acquitted at trial of voyeurism contrary to s. 162(1)(c) of the Criminal Code after using a camera pen to surreptitiously record videos of female students focusing on their chests and cleavage.

The Crown appealed the acquittal on three grounds: whether the trial judge erred in finding no sexual purpose; whether evidence from a warrantless search should have been admitted under s. 24(2) of the Charter; and whether the students had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The majority (Feldman and Watt JJ.A.) allowed the Crown's appeal on the sexual purpose issue but dismissed it on the privacy issue, finding that students in public areas of a school do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Huscroft J.A. dissented, arguing the students did have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The appeal was ultimately dismissed.

The applicant was convicted of first-degree murder of his wife following a jury trial.

He sought judicial interim release pending appeal, which was initially denied.

Three years later, he brought a second application for bail, citing new grounds of appeal, fresh evidence regarding a potential third-party suspect, and the passage of time as material changes in circumstances.

The Crown conceded that the appeal was arguable but opposed release on public interest grounds.

The court granted the application, finding that the interests of reviewability outweighed the interests of enforcement, particularly given the serious new ground relating to defence counsel's removal from the record, the substantial fresh evidence regarding an alternative suspect, the applicant's four years of incarceration pending appeal, and the imminent scheduling of the appeal hearing.

A bus driver employed by the Toronto Transit Commission was charged with failing to stop at a red light and careless driving following a collision with a pedestrian that resulted in death.

The defendant was operating a bus that struck and killed a pedestrian at an intersection controlled by traffic signals.

The Crown presented three civilian witnesses and an expert in collision reconstruction.

The defence called the defendant and an expert in driving instruction.

The court found the defendant not guilty of both charges, determining that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant ran a red light, and that the defendant's driving did not constitute careless driving under the applicable legal standard.

During a criminal trial for sexual assault and sexual exploitation arising from alleged touching of a student, the Crown sought to introduce evidence of other alleged sexually inappropriate remarks and gestures by the accused toward students.

The Crown argued the evidence formed part of the contextual narrative and was probative of whether the touching was sexual rather than innocent.

The court held that the proposed evidence relied on impermissible general propensity reasoning rather than a specific similar‑fact inference.

Concerns about potential collusion and contamination among witnesses further undermined any probative value.

Given the significant risk of moral and reasoning prejudice, the court excluded the evidence.

A high school teacher pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of a 16-year-old student under section 153(a) of the Criminal Code.

The offender engaged in a six-month sexual relationship with the student, involving fondling, mutual oral sex, masturbation, and digital penetration.

The conduct occurred in multiple locations including vehicles, hotel rooms in Italy, and tents in Kenya.

The offender took advantage of the student's vulnerability following her parents' separation and facilitated her deception of her parents to travel to Italy.

The court sentenced the offender to 14 months imprisonment and three years probation, emphasizing the serious breach of trust and the need for denunciation and general deterrence.