The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Matthew Armstrong’s appeal from robbery convictions, holding the verdict was reasonable and the electronic messages were properly assessed.
The Court held Schedule A's negotiated provision permitting electronic transmission and the parties' established practice of communicating by email controlled over the inconsistent standard form requirement for personal/hand delivery; accordingly the emailed written waiver satisfied the Agreement and the appeal was dismissed.
The trial judge erred in law by adopting a primarily subjective analysis focused on the accused's asserted joking; private electronic communications can qualify as 'written material' under s.163.1 and must be assessed objectively under s.163.1(1)(b) and (c). The mens rea for s.163.1 offences requires intentional creation/composition and transmission and knowledge of the nature of the material; motive or claimed joking is irrelevant to those elements. Section 172.1 requires communications be made for the specific purpose of facilitating a designated offence rather than proof of a 'sexual purpo…
An interim family-law application was granted in part to replace failed pre-recorded messages with supervised live calls and to allow monthly supervised in-person parenting time.
The court held that emails obtained from the respondent’s account were not admissible as substantive evidence because their probative value did not outweigh the prejudicial effect of how they were obtained.