V. Mistry

In a sexual assault trial, the court ruled on the admissibility of the complainant's Apple Watch data, which recorded sleep activity.

The defence argued an expert was required to interpret the data.

The court held that data automatically generated by a personal electronic device is computer by-product evidence, not hearsay, and generally does not require expert testimony for admissibility.

The complainant's testimony was deemed sufficient to authenticate the data under section 31.1 of the Canada Evidence Act, with its ultimate weight to be determined at trial.

The Superior Court of Justice delivered reasons for sentence for Tahjai Hannay following guilty pleas to drug trafficking and firearm offences.

The accused was found in possession of cocaine, drug paraphernalia, and a loaded prohibited firearm with a prohibited device.

The court accepted a joint submission from counsel, finding it reasonable and within the acceptable range of sentences, noting that a guilty plea was the strongest mitigating factor.

The court applied the test for joint submissions, ensuring it would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The sentence included a net custodial term of 925 days, a lifetime firearms prohibition under s. 109 of the Criminal Code, a DNA order, and forfeiture of seized items, with the victim fine surcharge waived due to time in custody.

The Crown applied for a sexual assault complainant to testify with the aid of a trained support dog.

The defence did not oppose the application.

The court granted the application, finding jurisdiction based on its inherent authority to control its own process and the rights afforded to victims under section 13 of the Victim's Bill of Rights Act.

The ruling emphasized a non-rigid interpretation of testimonial aid provisions to ensure witnesses can provide full and candid accounts of traumatic events.