U. Kancharla

The five defendants were charged with numerous offences including drug trafficking, firearms possession, discharging a firearm, and criminal organization offences arising from a lengthy police investigation known as Project Patton.

The Crown relied heavily on intercepted communications.

The court found several defendants guilty of various drug trafficking and firearms possession charges, as well as discharging a firearm in relation to a March 24, 2018 shooting.

However, the court acquitted the defendants of attempted murder, the April 30, 2018 shooting, and the criminal organization charges, finding insufficient evidence of structure to constitute a criminal organization and reasonable doubt regarding the identity of the shooter in the April incident.

The Crown sought to admit expert opinion evidence from a forensic scientist regarding DNA and body fluid analysis.

The court admitted the expert evidence, finding it met the Mohan criteria and the White Burgess balancing test.

Subsequently, the accused brought an application to exclude fresh forensic evidence obtained during a trial adjournment, arguing late disclosure impaired his right to make full answer and defence under section 7 of the Charter.

The court granted the application, excluding the fresh evidence from the Crown's case-in-chief due to the prejudice caused to the accused's cross-examination strategy, though noting the ruling could be revisited if the defence called evidence.

A young offender was convicted of manslaughter for his role as a lookout during a fatal shooting in a fast food restaurant washroom.

The Crown sought the maximum three-year sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, while the defence sought a sentence of time served with enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court denied enhanced credit, finding no exceptional circumstances, and sentenced the offender to two years and nine months in closed custody, less time served, followed by two years of probation.

The accused, charged with four robberies, brought a pre-trial application to exclude text messages recovered from his cellphone.

The texts, exchanged with a co-perpetrator, discussed obtaining a vehicle and committing robberies.

The accused argued the texts were more prejudicial than probative, particularly one referencing a plan to rob a bank.

The court dismissed the application, finding the texts highly probative of identity and lacking any improper prejudicial effect.

Certain texts referencing uncharged drug offences were redacted on consent.

The young person, charged with first-degree murder, brought a motion for a directed verdict at the close of the Crown's case.

The Crown alleged the young person aided and abetted two others in the planned and deliberate shooting of the victim in a restaurant washroom.

The court applied the test for a directed verdict, assessing whether a properly instructed jury could reasonably convict based on the circumstantial evidence.

Finding sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer the young person knew of the plan and acted as a lookout, the court dismissed the motion.

During a jury trial for alleged sexual assault against a child, the Crown sought to play a 911 call recording during re‑examination of a witness after the defence advanced a theory that the witness fabricated the allegation.

The Crown argued the recording demonstrated the witness’s emotional state immediately after the alleged fabrication and constituted a prior consistent statement rebutting the defence theory.

The court held that while limited re‑examination was permissible to address allegations of recent fabrication, the scope of re‑examination must remain confined to clarifying or explaining matters raised in cross‑examination.

The judge ruled that playing the 911 recording would be highly prejudicial due to its intense emotional content and repeated accusations, and its probative value was limited.

The Crown was instead permitted to ask questions about the call and rely on police event report records, but the recording itself was excluded.

The applicant corporation, authorized to wind up its affairs, sought directions on the distribution of its assets to shareholders.

A shareholder brought a companion motion seeking a reference to a Master to identify shareholders and for an accounting, which was dismissed as the corporation had provided sufficient evidence of its process.

The court granted a sealing order over the confidential Shareholder Lists, applying the Sierra Club test.

The court approved an initial distribution of $1 million but required further court approval for subsequent distributions, and directed the corporation to continue investing funds in an interest-bearing account.