Tamarin M. Dunnet

During a criminal trial for multiple child pornography offences, the Crown sought to qualify a police officer as an expert in Internet-based child pornography investigations and peer‑to‑peer file sharing networks.

The defence objected on the basis that the officer’s role in the investigation created an appearance of bias and partiality.

Applying the expert evidence framework in Mohan and the gatekeeping analysis discussed in Abbey and Van Bree, the court conducted a cost‑benefit assessment of the proposed opinion evidence.

The court held that the witness’s expertise, reliability, and the necessity of the evidence to understand LimeWire peer‑to‑peer technology outweighed any potential prejudice arising from his investigative role.

The officer was therefore permitted to testify as an expert on the operation of peer‑to‑peer file sharing systems.

Sentencing decision for possession of a restricted firearm together with readily accessible ammunition.

Police executed a search warrant at an apartment where the accused attempted to discard a handgun through a window; numerous rounds of ammunition and a magazine were also discovered in the residence.

Although the court previously found a breach of the accused’s s. 8 Charter rights relating to the search warrant, the evidence was admitted under the framework in R. v. Grant.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence in firearms offences, particularly where the accused possessed a handgun and large quantities of ammunition in a residence with young children while subject to a prohibition order.

Considering both mitigating factors and significant aggravating features, the court imposed a penitentiary sentence.

The applicant sought exclusion of a firearm, ammunition, and related evidence under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms following the execution of a search warrant.

The court found the warrant was issued without sufficient information to establish reasonable and probable grounds, resulting in a breach of s. 8 of the Charter.

However, the firearm was discarded from a window during execution of the warrant, which the court held constituted abandonment with only a tenuous causal connection to the Charter breach.

Although the later warrantless seizure of ammunition from a suitcase violated s. 8, the court applied the Grant framework and concluded the evidence should not be excluded.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.