Recent Cases:

R. v. Z. (2021) – The accused was charged with first-degree murder after he confessed five times during an undercover “Mr. Big” police investigation. After a 16-day preliminary inquiry, where the defence called extensive physical and forensic evidence to prove that the confessions were false, the judge excluded the confessions, finding:

“The material aspects he relates are not just neutral in character, or inaccurate; they are impossible… [The confessions] are externally unreliable – either undermined or, more frequently, directly contradicted by verifiable background information; about Mr. Z, ballistic, blood splatter, pathology and/or forensic evidence, as well as video and cellphone data evidence. His confessions are not just inherently inconsistent and contradictory with respect to one another; they also do not present a reliably coherent nor cohesive account of events. Moreover, they are substantially contradicted on critical elements by extrinsic evidence; and thus, are inherently unreliable.” 

After the confessions were excluded from evidence, the murder charge was stayed. This is believed to be the first time Mr. Big confessions have been excluded at a preliminary inquiry.

R. v. M. (2021) – The accused was charged with numerous offenses including two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm following a car crash. At a trial in the Superior Court of Justice, all charges were dismissed after serious violations of the accused’s right to counsel were uncovered during cross-examination.

R v D.S.  (2020) – The accused was charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm and other related offenses. After persuading the Crown that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction, all charges were withdrawn before trial.

R. v E. (2020) – The accused was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking and other related offenses. All charges were withdrawn when the Crown could not provide disclosure requested by the defense in a timely manner and a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay was likely.

R. v. B. (2019) – The accused was overheard threatening to kill his wife and found shortly thereafter standing over her body with a discharged shotgun. After an 8-day preliminary inquiry, the accused was discharged of first-degree murder and eventually received the minimum sentence available on a plea to second-degree murder.

R v M. (2019) – The accused was charged with child luring. After persuading the Crown that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction, the charge was withdrawn before trial.

R. v. S. (2018) – The accused was charged with 6 counts of attempt murder and 1 count of first-degree murder arising from a fire he set in his home. After a two-month trial, he was acquitted by a jury of 5 counts of attempt murder and a mistrial was declared on the other 2 counts after the jury could not reach a verdict. Following the mistrial, the Crown abandoned the outstanding first-degree murder and attempt murder counts and the accused pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter.

R. v. R. (2018) – Following a successful severance application, the accused appeared in the Superior Court of Justice for three consecutive sexual assault trials involving three different complainants. After juries found the accused not guilty at the first two trials, the 3rd charge was withdrawn by the Crown.