36970   Wayne Rodney Fedan v. Her Majesty the Queen

(B.C.)

Charter of Rights – Search and Seizure – Remedy

The applicant was the owner and operator of a pick-up truck involved in a single vehicle accident where two passengers died. Following the accident, the applicant’s truck was lawfully seized without a warrant pursuant to s. 489(2) of the Criminal Code. Two days later, the police obtained a warrant to search the vehicle. It did not specify the seizure of the manufacturer-installed SDM embedded underneath the floor of the driver’s seat or a search of its data. A voir dire was held on the admissibility of the SDM data. The trial judge held that the applicant had no subjective expectation of privacy in the SDM data and; therefore, its warrantless seizure and search did not violate his s. 8 Charter right. In the alternative, the trial judge would have admitted the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter. The applicant was convicted of two counts of dangerous driving causing death. The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal

36984  Nicola Nero v. Her Majesty the Queen

(Ont.)

Criminal law – Evidence – Admissibility – Private communications

A police investigation into suspected cocaine trafficking by the Applicant Mr. Nero resulted in several arrests. The investigation involved production orders, search warrants, and authorizations to intercept personal communications that yielded a substantial amount of evidence. The Applicants Mr. Nero and Mr. Caputo were tried together and initially elected a jury trial. Defence counsel's attack on the admissibility of the evidence obtained during the investigation was unsuccessful. Shortly before jury selection, the accused filed a motion for recusal on the basis of bias. The motion was not pursued. Instead, the accuseds appeared on the same indictment before another judge. They re-elected a trial by judge alone and pled guilty. The accuseds subsequently appealed on the basis the original judge was biased, erred in law in upholding the validity of the warrants and authorizations obtained during the investigation, and erred in failing to exclude intercepted communications between Mr. Nero and a woman, Ms. Tawnya Fletcher, he claimed was his common-law spouse. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice admitted the communications at trial. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeals.

36985  Martino Caputo v. Her Majesty the Queen

(Ont.)

Criminal law – Evidence – Admissibility – Private communications

A police investigation into suspected cocaine trafficking by the Applicant Mr. Nero resulted in several arrests. The investigation involved production orders, search warrants, and authorizations to intercept personal communications that yielded a substantial amount of evidence. The Applicants Mr. Nero and Mr. Caputo were tried together and initially elected a jury trial. Defence counsel's attack on the admissibility of the evidence obtained during the investigation was unsuccessful. Shortly before jury selection, the accused filed a motion for recusal on the basis of bias. The motion was not pursued. Instead, the accuseds appeared on the same indictment before another judge. They re-elected a trial by judge alone and pled guilty. The accuseds subsequently appealed on the basis the original judge was biased, erred in law in upholding the validity of the warrants and authorizations obtained during the investigation, and erred in failing to exclude intercepted communications between Mr. Nero and a woman, Ms. Tawnya Fletcher, he claimed was his common-law spouse. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice admitted the communications at trial. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeals.

36976  E.U., L.T. v. Children's Aid Society of Toronto, Office of the Children's Lawyer

(Ont.)

Charter of Rights – Fundamental justice – Status of persons

The applicants are the parents of the child who was apprehended by the Children’s Aid Society in July 2012. The child was placed with a family and has lived with these caregivers since that time. They wish to adopt her. After a ten day trial in which the parents were separately represented, the child was found to be in need of protection and was made a Crown ward. The parents were given no right of access. The parents filed a Notice of Appeal. Several status hearings ensued between November, 2014 and August, 2015, most of which were adjourned at the parents’ request. Their appeal remained unperfected. The Children’s Aid Society indicated that it intended to bring a motion to dismiss the appeal for delay. That motion was heard on August 27, 2015 where the parents requested an adjournment. The appeal on the merits was scheduled to be heard three weeks later. The transcripts, factum and appeal record had not been filed. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the Applicants’ appeal for delay. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the Applicants’ appeal.