X. Proestos

During a criminal proceeding, the defendants applied to exclude recordings of intercepted conversations.

The Crown sought to admit sessions 381 and 842.

The court found that portions of session 381 were sufficiently audible and contextualized to be admitted, while prejudicial portions regarding personal drug use were excluded.

The court ruled that session 842 was inadmissible hearsay, as the statements had no evidentiary value unless admitted for the truth of their contents.

In a voir dire during a criminal proceeding, the Crown sought to admit evidence of web-browsing intercepts and MMS messages allegedly captured from the accused's cell phone using novel police interception software.

The court reviewed the requirements for authenticating electronic documents under sections 31.1 to 31.3 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The court found that the police witness lacked the necessary expertise and actual knowledge to confirm that the intercepted data accurately reflected what was accessed or displayed on the accused's device.

As the technology was novel and untested by the police, and no expert evidence or corroborating data was provided, the Crown failed to authenticate the electronic documents.

The evidence was ruled inadmissible.

The appellant appealed his convictions for failing to file income tax returns, advancing pseudolegal arguments that he was not a 'person' under the Income Tax Act and that paying taxes is voluntary.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the arguments frivolous, vexatious, and devoid of merit.

The court also reprimanded the appellant's counsel for advancing Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) theories, noting it was an abuse of the court's process and a breach of professional obligations.

The applicants sought an order in the nature of certiorari to quash their committal to stand trial on a charge of production of Ephedrine.

They argued the preliminary hearing judge exceeded his jurisdiction by finding the added count arose from the same transaction as the original charges and by finding sufficient evidence for committal.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, holding that the preliminary hearing judge correctly applied the 'same transaction' rule under s. 548(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and properly assessed the circumstantial evidence in determining there was sufficient evidence to commit the applicants to trial.