Tania Bariteau

The accused was charged with sexual assault against a 17-year-old complainant.

The alleged offence occurred during a truck ride from Quebec to Ontario in November 2022.

The Crown alleged multiple instances of forced oral sex and digital penetration.

The accused claimed the complainant initiated and consented to all sexual activity.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as lacking credibility due to deliberate lies to police and inconsistencies between his police statement and trial testimony.

The court accepted the complainant's credible and coherent account of non-consensual sexual contact.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault, rejecting the defence that the complainant had initiated the sexual activity.

The accused was convicted of eleven criminal offences related to human trafficking of two female complainants in the sex trade.

The offences included exercising control over the victims for exploitation, receiving financial benefits from their sexual services, assault, and sexual assault.

The accused played a critical leadership role as the "Queen of the Preem Team," grooming and controlling the victims while working with her boyfriend and his associate.

The court imposed a total sentence of 7½ years imprisonment (effectively 8 years with custodial credits), finding the accused was not a victim but a perpetrator who played an integral role in the exploitation.

Tyrone Wilson pleaded guilty to manslaughter for the death of Devon Patten, which occurred during a planned robbery for drugs.

The Crown sought a sentence of 6.5 years, while the defence proposed 4-5 years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the planned nature of the robbery, the reckless participation in a dangerous enterprise, and the significant victim impact.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth at the time of the offence, his guilty plea, expressed remorse, lack of criminal record, community support, potential for rehabilitation, and exceptionally punitive pre-sentence custody conditions (extensive lockdowns and triple bunking).

The judge imposed a sentence of 5 years, less pre-sentence custody credit, along with a lifetime s.109 order and a DNA order.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and appealed on the basis that the trial judge erred by charging the jury on party liability.

The Supreme Court unanimously held that party liability was properly left with the jury as the evidence provided it with an air of reality.

The Court agreed with the dissenting judge below that the trial judge erred in his instructions on party liability, finding that the jury was never clearly told the appellant would have needed to know the principal intended to kill the victims in a planned and deliberate manner to be liable as an aider.

Nonetheless, the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code applied because the errors were harmless and there was no reasonable possibility the jury would have reached a different verdict.

Appeal dismissed and convictions upheld.

The accused, convicted of possession of 7.038 kg of heroin for the purpose of trafficking, was sentenced to five years imprisonment.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the large quantity of heroin and the accused's association with organized crime, and mitigating factors, such as his non-profit motive, pro-social conduct, and genuine remorse.

The court rejected the Crown's request for a 16-year sentence and the forfeiture of $10,500, finding the latter not proven to be proceeds of crime.

A 10-year weapons prohibition and a $200 victim surcharge were also imposed.

The Crown applied to admit the out-of-court statements of a complainant who relocated to the United States and refused to testify at trial.

The statements included a sworn video statement to police and testimony from a preliminary hearing.

The court applied the principled exception to the hearsay rule, finding that necessity was established due to the witness's unavailability and refusal to testify.

The court held that the sworn video statement met the threshold for reliability based on procedural and substantive factors, including extensive corroborative evidence.

The video statement was admitted for the truth of its contents, while the preliminary hearing testimony was ruled admissible only at the instance of the defence to challenge credibility and reliability.

Le requérant, reconnu coupable de possession d'héroïne en vue d'en faire le trafic, a contesté la validité constitutionnelle du paragraphe 5(2) de la Loi réglementant certaines drogues et autres substances.

Il alléguait que la disposition violait les articles 7 et 15 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés en criminalisant les « bons samaritains » qui tentent de fournir un approvisionnement sécuritaire aux toxicomanes.

La Cour a rejeté la requête, concluant que la loi ne crée pas de discrimination fondée sur la dépendance et que l'atteinte au droit à la liberté n'est ni d'une portée excessive ni totalement disproportionnée par rapport aux objectifs de santé et de sécurité publiques de l'État.

The appellant Crown appealed a Court of Appeal decision ordering a new trial for the respondent, who had been convicted of first degree murder after jury selection proceeded without peremptory challenges on the day Bill C-75 came into force.

The majority held that the statutory amendments abolishing peremptory challenges are constitutional because they do not infringe ss. 11(d) or 11(f) of the Charter, as the accused has no right to any particular jury selection procedure and adequate safeguards remain in place through challenges for cause, jury instructions, and the enhanced stand-aside power.

The majority further held that abolition of peremptory challenges is purely procedural and therefore applies retrospectively to all jury selections commencing on or after September 19, 2019.

Abella J. dissented in part, concluding that while the amendments are constitutional, they should apply only prospectively because they affect the accused's substantive right to meaningfully participate in jury selection.

Côté J. dissented in full, finding the abolition of peremptory challenges unconstitutional under s. 11(f) of the Charter as it substantially diminishes the core jury characteristics of impartiality, representativeness, and competence.

The applicant brought a pre-trial motion alleging violations of his rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter following the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

He challenged the validity of the telewarrant, the reasonable and probable grounds in the Information to Obtain, and the unannounced dynamic entry by police.

The court dismissed the s. 8 claims, finding the warrant valid and the entry justified by safety concerns.

The Crown conceded a s. 9 breach due to a 27-hour delay in bringing the applicant before a justice of the peace.

However, the court declined to order a stay of proceedings, finding that a reduction in sentence upon conviction would be an adequate alternative remedy.

The applicants, accused of a home invasion robbery, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence (including firearms and disguises) found in the trunk of a vehicle.

The police had stopped the vehicle hours after the robbery without reasonable grounds, detaining the occupants for an extended period without reading them their rights to counsel.

The court found serious breaches of sections 9 and 10(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the seriousness of the breaches and their impact on the applicants' rights outweighed society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits, resulting in the exclusion of the evidence.

The applicants, charged with offences relating to a home invasion robbery, brought an application to adduce evidence that a third party committed the robbery.

The court found a strong nexus between the third party and the crime, noting police intelligence and surveillance linking the third party to a vehicle similar to the one used in the robbery.

The court held that the proposed evidence was relevant and probative, and its probative value substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The application was allowed.

The offender was convicted of second degree murder after brutally stabbing the victim following a day of drinking.

The Crown sought 15 years of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought the mandatory minimum of 10 years.

The court weighed the offender's difficult background as a refugee and his efforts at self-improvement against the brutal nature of the prolonged attack and his failure to seek medical help for the victim.

The offender was sentenced to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 13 years, along with DNA and firearms prohibition orders.

The accused brought an application challenging the constitutionality of Bill C-75 amendments to the Criminal Code, which eliminated peremptory challenges and replaced lay triers with the trial judge for challenges for cause.

The accused argued these changes violated his rights under sections 7, 11(d), and 11(f) of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the amendments did not infringe the accused's right to an independent and impartial jury, nor did they violate principles of fundamental justice.

The court also held that the amendments were procedural in nature and applied retrospectively to the accused's trial.

The accused, Abdirisaq Yabarow, facing a charge of second-degree murder, brought a motion seeking to admit an exculpatory statement he made to an acquaintance, Mohamed Khalinle, or to compel the Crown to lead this statement as part of its case.

The statement included a claim of self-defence.

The court considered the established exceptions to the rule against self-serving statements, including mixed statements and spontaneous statements.

The court found that the Khalinle statement did not qualify as a mixed statement because it was separate from other inculpatory statements adduced by the Crown, lacking a sufficient nexus.

It also did not meet the criteria for a spontaneous statement, as it was made after ample time for consideration and not upon confrontation with an accusation.

Consequently, the court ruled the exculpatory statement inadmissible at the instance of the accused and refused to compel the Crown to lead it, affirming the Crown's discretion in calling witnesses and the principle against self-serving evidence.

The accused, Abdirizaq Yabarow, was charged with second-degree murder.

The Crown brought an application to determine the voluntariness and admissibility of two statements made by the accused.

The first statement was made to paramedics and police on October 4, 2017, when the accused was perceived as a victim seeking help for injuries.

The second statement was made to homicide detectives on October 6, 2017, following his arrest for murder.

The court found that the paramedics were not persons in authority and that the first statement was voluntary and admissible.

Regarding the second statement, the court determined it was voluntary and admissible up to the point where the accused expressed confusion and requested a rest, but any statements made thereafter were inadmissible as police questioning should have ceased at that juncture.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to exclude the voluntary portions of either statement.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, brought an application to quash a search warrant and production order related to his electronic devices (cell phone and tablet) and to exclude evidence under s. 24(1) and (2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The application challenged the facial and subfacial validity of the orders, alleging a lack of reasonable grounds, overbreadth, material non-disclosure in the supporting information, and improper execution of the warrant outside the authorized time period.

The court dismissed the application, finding that reasonable grounds for the orders existed, there was no material non-disclosure that vitiated the authorizations, and the forensic examination of the devices was not required to be completed within the search and seizure period stipulated in the warrant, but rather was governed by the Criminal Code's detention regime.

In a second-degree murder trial, the Crown applied to admit three graphic autopsy photographs of the deceased.

The defence opposed, citing prejudicial effect and proposing alternatives such as limiting the number of photographs or presenting them in black and white.

The court applied the balancing test of probative value versus prejudicial effect, finding the photographs highly relevant to central issues including intent, self-defence, and a potential third-party suspect theory.

The court emphasized that modern juries are capable of dispassionate evaluation and concluded that the significant probative value of the photographs strongly outweighed any potential prejudicial effect.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to limit the photographs, as doing so would undermine their evidentiary purpose.

The Crown's application was granted, allowing the introduction of all three full-colour autopsy photographs.

The accused, a transgender woman charged with murder, sought to introduce expert sociological evidence regarding the prevalence of violence against transgender people to support her claim of self-defence.

The Crown opposed the application.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed evidence lacked logical relevance to the specific facts of the case, was unnecessary as the expected reactions to violence were not outside the normal experience of a jury, and carried a potential for prejudice that significantly outweighed its minimal probative value.

The applicant, charged with second-degree murder, sought to exclude a videotaped statement made to police, alleging a breach of her s. 10(b) Charter right to consult counsel without delay.

The court found a minor s. 10(b) breach due to a police officer's general practice of not facilitating counsel contact at the hospital.

However, the court determined that the subsequent statement was not obtained as a consequence of the breach, as there was a "fresh start" after the applicant consulted duty counsel, and the applicant would have spoken to the police regardless.

Applying the Grant factors, the court concluded that the breach was minor, had no impact on the applicant's Charter-protected interests, and society's interest in a trial on the merits favored inclusion.

The statement was ruled admissible.

During a trial for two counts of first degree murder, the Crown sought to cross-examine the accused on text messages and a video clip suggesting he possessed a firearm prior to the homicides.

The court ruled that the Crown could not suggest inferences from the text messages, as it would operate unfairly.

However, the court allowed the jury to consider the video clip showing the accused allegedly pointing a firearm, finding it admissible as evidence of access to means and that its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect.