S. Weinstein

The defendant was charged with two counts of first-degree murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder, following a shooting that killed two victims.

The Crown alleged the defendant hired a contract killer to murder the victims' son, a drug dealer who worked for the defendant.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of the admitted killer, an unsavoury witness who had entered a plea deal.

The court applied the Vetrovec warning and found the witness's testimony required independent corroboration.

Concluding that the circumstantial evidence (cell phone records and GPS data) was weak and supported multiple innocent inferences, the court found the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant.

The United States requested the extradition of the applicant for alleged sexual offences.

The applicant brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing that the potential for indefinite civil commitment in Minnesota constituted an abuse of process.

The Crown challenged the court's jurisdiction to hear the application.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, holding that the extradition judge's role is circumscribed to determining dual criminality under section 29 of the Extradition Act.

The court found no nexus between the potential foreign penalty and the fairness of the committal hearing, concluding that the issue of extreme potential consequences falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice at the surrender stage.

The Crown sought to admit a video and audio statement given by the accused to the police following his arrest for aggravated assault.

The defence argued the statement was involuntary due to oppressive conditions, sleep deprivation, and police trickery, including the use of the Reid Technique and false evidence.

The court found that while the police officer lied to the accused about the evidence against him, the overall circumstances of the interrogation were not oppressive.

The court concluded the Crown met its heavy burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary and admissible.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of cocaine and cash seized during a warrantless search following a traffic stop.

He alleged breaches of ss. 8, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter after police concealed the true reason for his detention and delayed advising him of his right to counsel.

The court found no s. 8 breach because reasonable and probable grounds existed based on wiretap intelligence and surveillance.

However, deliberate breaches of ss. 10(a) and 10(b) occurred when police misled the accused about the reason for detention and failed to promptly advise him of his right to counsel or facilitate a requested call.

Applying the s. 24(2) Grant analysis, the court held the breaches were brief and had minimal practical impact, and that society’s interest in adjudication on the merits favoured admission of the reliable physical evidence.

Media organizations applied for access to previously sealed informations to obtain (ITOs) relating to a production order and search warrant issued during a criminal investigation.

The accused sought continuation of a publication ban, arguing that publication of intercepted communications referenced in the ITOs would compromise his right to a fair trial on an extortion charge.

Applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test, the court held that the accused failed to demonstrate a real and serious risk to trial fairness, given existing publicity, the passage of time before trial, jury instructions, and the challenge for cause process.

A third party mentioned in the ITOs argued that publication would damage his reputation, but the court held that third parties generally lack standing to seek publication bans absent exceptional circumstances.

The court concluded that the open court principle prevailed and lifted the remaining publication bans.

Media organizations applied for access to and the ability to publish the contents of an Information to Obtain supporting a search warrant in a major police investigation.

The Provincial Crown and an accused sought a publication ban on references to non-consensual intercepted private communications, arguing protection of the wiretap regime and fair trial rights.

Applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test, the court held that generalized concerns about the wiretap regime and speculative risks to a future jury trial were insufficient to justify restricting openness.

The court emphasized the strong presumption of open courts and the public interest in scrutiny of judicial authorizations and police investigations.

Balancing the competing interests, the court concluded that the salutary effects of a publication ban did not outweigh the significant deleterious effects on freedom of expression and public accountability.

Media organizations applied for access to portions of a sealed information to obtain (ITO) used to secure a search warrant in a criminal investigation.

The Crown had released a version with extensive edits, including redactions relating to innocent third parties.

Applying the open court principle and the Dagenais/Mentuck test under s. 487.3 of the Criminal Code, the court held that the Crown failed to establish a serious risk to the administration of justice justifying continued secrecy.

Assertions that the redacted material constituted non‑essential narrative or could harm innocent persons were unsupported by evidence.

The court ordered disclosure of the redacted material subject to limited exceptions for personal identifiers, certain references involving the mayor’s spouse, and portions potentially affecting the accused’s fair trial rights.