Walter Costa

The defendant was charged with careless driving causing death and bodily harm under the Highway Traffic Act following a collision with a semi-trailer.

The court heard both the trial on the merits and a Charter s. 11(b) delay motion.

The court found the defendant not guilty of careless driving, concluding that the collision was due to an unexpected and insufficiently warned-of hazard (a dark, slow-moving semi-trailer blocking the lane at night with inadequate reflective markings and no hazard lights), rather than the defendant's lack of due care.

Although the court found a Charter s. 11(b) breach due to prosecutorial delay, the motion was dismissed as moot given the acquittal.

Erick Bercian, charged with first-degree murder, challenged the admissibility of a statement made to police before his arrest.

The court found that Bercian was psychologically detained when questioned by police, despite being told he was free to leave.

His Charter rights under ss. 10(a) and 10(b) were violated because he was not informed of the true reason for his detention (homicide investigation, as the victim had died) and was not given the opportunity to consult counsel based on the full extent of his jeopardy.

The police also used manipulative questioning tactics and effectively prevented him from leaving.

Consequently, the statement was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and other offenses stemming from a 1990 home invasion.

The Crown's case relied on DNA evidence from a T-shirt and a photographic lineup identification by the victim.

The court found the DNA evidence unreliable due to a lack of proven link between the T-shirt and the crime, noting multiple other semen samples on the bedsheet that excluded the accused.

The photographic lineup was deemed fatally flawed due to procedural defects, including the distinctive appearance of the accused's photograph and the victim's reliance on intuition.

Emphasizing the duty to prevent wrongful convictions, the court concluded that the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt, as both pieces of evidence lacked reliability and could not cumulatively establish guilt.

The accused was found not guilty on all counts.

The accused sought a stay of proceedings based on alleged violations of ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter due to 25.5 years of pre-charge delay and the loss of an evidence control sheet.

The court found that the police decision not to send the victim's t-shirt for forensic analysis in 1990 was not negligent or oppressive state conduct, as DNA testing capabilities were limited at the time and conventional serology would not have led to charges.

The court also found that the loss of the evidence control sheet did not constitute a Charter breach, as there was no air of reality that it would have materially assisted the defence.

The application for a stay was dismissed, and the matter was ordered to proceed to trial.

The offender was convicted of three counts of attempted murder by arson after pouring gasoline in a bedroom and setting it on fire, trapping his former romantic partner and her seven-year-old daughter.

A one-year-old child was also in the home.

The court weighed the horrific nature of the domestic violence and severe injuries to the victims against the offender's lack of prior violent record and positive prospects for rehabilitation.

The court imposed a concurrent sentence of 11 years imprisonment and declined the Crown's request to delay parole eligibility under s. 743.6 of the Criminal Code.

The accused is charged with first-degree murder and aggravated sexual assault.

He intends to plead guilty to manslaughter, arguing he lacked the requisite mens rea for murder due to severe alcohol intoxication.

In these pre-trial motions, the court ruled on the admissibility of evidence.

The court admitted the accused's post-arrest exculpatory statements by agreement.

The court allowed some evidence of the accused's uncharged disreputable conduct (an assault and disarming a neighbour) to show his mental state, but excluded highly prejudicial details like theft and name-calling.

Finally, the court ruled that statements made by the accused while pinned down by civilians making a citizen's arrest were admissible, finding the civilians were not 'persons in authority' and the statements were voluntary.

The accused, charged with serious criminal driving offences following a fatal train-minivan collision, brought a motion for a stay of proceedings alleging multiple breaches of ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.

The accused argued that the Crown and police failed to preserve evidence, including a witness statement, train black box data, train video, the minivan, and a 911 call recording.

The accused also alleged pre-charge delay, late disclosure, and reliance on faulty expert evidence.

The court systematically reviewed each allegation, applying the tests for lost evidence and abuse of process.

The court found no unacceptable negligence by the police or Crown, noting that much of the evidence was never in their possession or was lost in the normal course of business by third parties.

The court concluded there was no prejudice to the accused's right to a fair trial and dismissed the motion.

The accused was driving a minivan with his four children when he failed to stop at a railway crossing and collided with a freight train.

Two of his children died and a third suffered serious injuries.

The accused was charged with criminal negligence and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and bodily harm.

The court found that while the accused's conduct did not amount to the wanton or reckless disregard required for criminal negligence, his failure to heed warning signs and stop for the visible and audible train constituted a marked departure from the standard of care.

The accused was found guilty of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and bodily harm.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of attempted murder and arson after pouring gasoline in a bedroom where his former partner and her seven-year-old daughter were sleeping, and setting it on fire.

The accused claimed the complainant started the fire herself after he announced he was leaving her for a former girlfriend.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as lacking credibility and defying common sense, applying the W.(D.) framework.

Relying on the complainant's evidence, expert fire investigation, and medical evidence, the court found the accused deliberately set the fire with the specific intent to kill the occupants.

The accused was found guilty on all eight counts.

In a murder trial where self-defence was the central issue, the Crown removed four witnesses from its list shortly before trial because they possessed reliable exculpatory evidence.

The defence brought a motion to compel the Crown to call these witnesses.

The court held that while the Crown generally has discretion over which witnesses to call, the decision to exclude witnesses solely to withhold exculpatory evidence is a trial tactic reviewable under the court's trial management authority.

Finding that the Crown's strategy would adversely affect trial fairness, the court ordered the Crown to call the witnesses during its case.