Trevor A. Brown

The applicant sought a search warrant, a general warrant, and a sealing order, including a novel request to compel the target to unlock seized digital devices using biometric scanning (fingerprint or facial recognition).

The court granted the standard warrant provisions but refused the biometric scanning authorization.

The court held that compelling a target to use their physical features to unlock a device is tantamount to compelling the production of a password, which violates the protection against self-incrimination and the right to silence under section 7 of the Charter.

The accused pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography between February 1, 2017 and June 1, 2017, contrary to Section 163.1 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded by indictment, triggering mandatory minimum penalties.

Police discovered 863 unique images and 5 unique videos of child pornography depicting extremely young children in explicit sexual acts.

The accused had organized and catalogued the materials.

The court imposed a sentence of 19 months imprisonment, followed by 3 years probation, with ancillary orders including DNA registration, a 20-year Sexual Offence Identification Registration Act order, and a 10-year Section 161 order prohibiting attendance at public swimming areas where children are present and restricting computer and internet use.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with having a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg/100 ml.

The trial proceeded as a blended voir dire addressing Charter violations.

The court found three Charter breaches: (1) the approved screening device demand was not made forthwith, violating sections 8, 9, and 10(b); (2) the accused was denied his right to counsel of choice when police discouraged him from contacting his preferred legal services provider; and (3) the accused was arbitrarily detained for approximately 7.5 hours after providing breath samples without proper assessment under section 498 of the Criminal Code.

The breath samples were excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The over 80 charge was dismissed due to exclusion of evidence.

On the impaired driving charge, the court found the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, as the connection between the vehicle observed at the accident scene and the accused's vehicle could not be established with certainty, and the physical observations of impairment were equivocal.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The applicants sought disclosure of the complete investigative file relating to a homicide investigation that formed the basis for wiretap authorizations under Part VI of the Criminal Code.

The Crown resisted disclosure, arguing that materials not explicitly relied upon in the Information to Obtain were irrelevant and protected by public interest privilege.

The court held that the accused's right to make full answer and defence applies to pre-trial evidentiary hearings, including Garofoli applications.

The court established that materials in the "investigative file" are presumptively relevant and should be disclosed, defined as all materials accumulated by the investigating agency as a consequence of its investigative efforts in the investigation giving rise to the authorization itself.

The court ordered disclosure of specified materials from the homicide investigation file, subject to redactions protecting informer privilege, while declining to order disclosure of the entire investigative file to prevent needless complexity.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 milliliters of blood.

The trial judge found multiple Charter violations: the accused was detained for investigative purposes without being informed of the reason for detention or his right to counsel; he was not advised of his right to counsel immediately upon arrest; and he was unlawfully over-held in custody for approximately four hours following the breath testing procedure.

The trial judge excluded the breath sample readings and observations of impairment under section 24(2) of the Charter due to the cumulative effect of these breaches.

The over 80 charge was dismissed.

On the impaired driving charge, the trial judge found the evidence of impairment insufficient to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

The accused was charged with multiple Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences arising from a joint federal and provincial investigation.

The Crown alleged that the accused knowingly possessed and stored restricted and prohibited firearms, ammunition, crack cocaine, and drug paraphernalia in a shared storage locker.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence and testimony from the co-accused.

The court found that while the circumstances were suspicious, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had actual knowledge of the contents of the bags he delivered to the storage facility, nor could willful blindness be established.

The accused was acquitted of counts 1-30 but found guilty of unlawful possession of ammunition while prohibited.