William Caven

The Crown brought pre-trial applications to establish the voluntariness of statements made by the accused persons to police.

One of the accused opposed the application, arguing his statement was involuntary and obtained in violation of his section 10 Charter rights because he was not informed of all the investigations for which he was a suspect.

The accused also challenged the admissibility of incriminating videos found on a co-accused's phone, alleging a section 8 Charter breach.

The court found the police questioning did not violate section 10 and the statement was voluntary.

Furthermore, the court held the accused lacked standing to challenge the search of the co-accused's phone as he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the videos.

The Crown's applications were granted and the accused's applications to exclude evidence were dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle with methamphetamine causing death, operating while prohibited, and failing to comply with bail.

He crossed the center line and caused a fatal head-on collision.

The court weighed the severe aggravating factors, including his prior impaired driving record and driving prohibitions, against mitigating factors such as his guilty plea and remorse.

The court imposed a global sentence of 6 years imprisonment, reduced by 60 days for COVID-19 collateral consequences, and granted 1347 days of pre-sentence custody credit, leaving a remnant of 2 years and 53 days to serve.

A 12-year driving prohibition was also ordered.

The applicant brought a pre-trial motion to exclude evidence obtained from a warrantless entry and search of his residence, arguing his s. 8 and s. 9 Charter rights were violated.

Police had entered the home without a warrant after receiving a 911 call from a witness who observed a man assaulting a woman in a vehicle that was later located in the applicant's driveway.

The court found that the applicant had a reasonable expectation of privacy, but the warrantless entry was justified under the common law exigent circumstances doctrine due to concerns for the woman's safety.

The court also held that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the applicant and that drugs found in the basement were lawfully seized in plain view.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused was tried for assault following an incident observed by an independent witness driving a truck.

The witness testified to seeing the accused repeatedly strike the female passenger and place her in a headlock while driving.

The complainant, who was the accused's girlfriend, denied the assault occurred, claiming they were merely 'play fighting'.

The court found the independent witness credible and reliable, rejected the complainant's evidence due to inconsistencies and a clear power imbalance, and found the accused guilty of assault.

The accused was charged with 28 counts relating to the robbery of an unmarked police vehicle, including theft of firearms, ammunition, and police equipment.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on a handprint on a package of paper and the accused's subsequent arrest in a stolen vehicle containing some of the stolen items.

The court found the forensic evidence unreliable and concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control of the stolen items or committed the robbery.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.