Tania Bariteau

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.

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.

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.

The accused, charged with two counts of first degree murder, applied for a directed verdict of acquittal at the close of the Crown's case.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance, cell phone records, and expert evidence on the 'code of silence' to establish motive and opportunity.

The court applied the test for a directed verdict, assessing whether a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could convict based on the available evidence and reasonable inferences.

The court found that the totality of the direct and circumstantial evidence provided a sufficient basis for a jury to find the essential elements of the offences proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The application was dismissed.