New & Notable: Finding privacy in the wrong places

Richard Cole was a teacher. Ironically, one of his duties was that he was responsible for “policing use by students of their networked laptops” [para 14]. In a similar way, school board technicians could access his computer. While performing routine maintenance activities one day a technician found nude and partially nude photographs of an underage female student [para 18].

 

The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether Cole had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the laptop. The Court found that he had. The warrantless search of it by the police was therefore a violation of section 8. The evidence, however, ought not to be excluded: 2012 SCC 53.

Read More

New & Notable: Just blow if you really aren't driving...

Jeffrey MacKenzie got out of the driver's side door of a car that was on the shoulder of the 401 express lanes in Toronto. He later would say he was not the driver. Nonetheless, a tow truck driver saw him get out of the driver's seat and when police arrived he was standing in front of the car talking on his phone. 
The tow truck driver advised the police that MacKenzie was the driver - something he admitted under cross-examination was an assumption based on what he had observed. The officer made further observations including bloodshot eyes, smell of alcohol and slurred speech. 
The officer ultimately made a demand pursuant to section 254(2) of the Code. MacKenzie refused. He was charged with refusal. At trial Caldwell J considered, inter alia, whether the Crown had to prove that MacKenzie was in fact the driver: 2012 ONCJ 424.
Read More

New & Notable: Focusing on a proper assessment of credibility

RJH was convicted after trial of sexual assault and sexual interference against AD, an 11 year-old girl and KM a 13 year-old girl.

 

RJH was 32 years old at the time of the offences and knew KM from her birth. AD was a close friend of KM’s and met RJH through her friend. All three communicated regularly by computer chats. KM testified that RJH asked her to have sex with him while they were in his truck. KM said no. Undeterred, RJH pulled down her pants and panties and tried, unsuccessfully, to insert his penis into her vagina. One month later KM reported the incident to police. AD testified that while in RJH’s truck, RJH picked her up, put her on his lap and asked her to have sex. RJH asked more than once and AD kept saying no. KM was driving the truck when this happened. RJH testified and denied the offences.

RJH was convicted after trial and appealed: 2012 NLCA 44.

Read More

New & Notable: Respecting and protecting 911

Michael Purcell was charged with various drug offences including production and possession for the purpose of trafficking.  At trial Purcell brought an application to have evidence discovered by a police search of his home excluded due to a breach of section 8.

 

The search was conducted in response to a 911 call. Murray J dismissed the application: 2012 CarswellOnt 7187 (SCJ).

 

On December 26, 2009 a 911 call was placed from Purcell's residence. It was 2:04 am; the dispatcher could hear a male and female voice arguing in the background. There was yelling and swearing.

 

Read More

New & Notable: "Violence", its really not that hard to define

Randy Smith is a violent criminal with a lengthy criminal record. His most recent foray involved a short crime spree during which he robbed, or attempted to rob, four different persons; assaulted some of them and drove in a dangerous manner causing injuries to persons when he did.

 

After his conviction the Crown sought to have him declared a dangerous offender. An issue arose as to whether any of the offences were “serious personal injury offences” as defined in section 752 (which is required for an assessment under section 752.1). Kiteley J held that they were not, applying an objective standard of “serious” violence: 2010 ONSC 4725. The Crown appealed. The Court of Appeal allowed he appeal and clarified the issue: 2012 ONCA 645.

Read More

New & Notable: Driving impaired not a marked departure? Not that it's the test anyway...

Suggashie was acquitted after trial of impaired operation of a motor vehicle contrary to s 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The trial was held in the First Nation territory of Pikangikum.

 

On appeal [2012 ONSC 22929], which was held in absentia, the Crown argued two grounds:

 

First, that the trial judge erred in law in finding that issue at trial was whether the conduct of the accused demonstrated a marked departure from that of a normal person.

Second, that the trial judge erred in finding that First Nations peacekeepers are peace officers with all the rights and responsibilities that such a designation entails.

Read More

New & Notable: Sleeping it off in the wrong place

Jody Smits was sleeping in the back seat of a van. His van was parked on the side of the road in rural Cambridge. Apparently he was initially headed back to Barrie. Clearly he did not make it there. Instead he decided to sleep in the back of his van. Around 7:15 am someone noticed his van on the side of hte road. That person later called police. When the police arrived they noticed the van was not running. They saw Smits in the back seat asleep. The keys were in the ignition. After waking Smits the officer formed grounds for an arrest and Smits was ultimatley charged with impaired care or control.
He was convicted at trial. He successfully appealed to the summary conviction appeal level. The Crown appealed. The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviciton: 2012 ONCA 524.
Read More

New & Notable: Sleeping it off in the wrong place

Jody Smits was sleeping in the back seat of a van. His van was parked on the side of the road in rural Cambridge. Apparently he was initially headed back to Barrie. Clearly he did not make it there. Instead he decided to sleep in the back of his van.
Around 7:15 am someone noticed his van on the side of hte road. That person later called police. When the police arrived they noticed the van was not running. They saw Smits in the back seat asleep. The keys were in the ignition. After waking Smits the officer formed grounds for an arrest and Smits was ultimatley charged with impaired care or control.
He was convicted at trial. He successfully appealed to the summary conviction appeal level.
The Crown appealed. The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviciton: 2012 ONCA 524.
Read More

Current & Curious: Cell technology is simple compared to this stuff...

Courts continue to grapple with the apparently difficult issue of searching cellular phones incident to arrest. In one of the most recent rulings, Boswell J seems to forge a somewhat new and much more restrictive approach to the issue: R v Liew,2012 ONSC 1826. A curious ruling given the recent comments of the Court of Appeal in R v Manley, 2011 ONCA 128.

A nice summary of Liew and commentary can be found on Westlaw Canada's CriminalSource's newest newsletter: Police Powers Newsletter 2012-01.

In brief, Liew was arrested on grounds that he was importing cocaine. A search incident to arrest revealed a Sony Erikson cell phone. The officer decided search the phone incident to arrest. The stated purpose for this search was to find "immediate phone calls and immediate texts" [para 15]. The officer did find some recent phone calls. The search of the phone lasted approximately 7 minutes [para 17].

Read More

News: New Issue of Mack's Criminal Law Bulletin now online!

Check out the latest MCL Bulletin on Westlaw Canada's CriminalSource. Issue 2012-16 considers recent cases which have looked at use of force by police officers in the context Charter motions pursuant to sections 7 and 12 seeking a stay of proceedings.

Coincidentally, the Supreme Court recently considered this very issue in R v Bellusci, 2012 SCC 44. Of course they shared my views on the issue.