A. Banister-Thompson

The accused, an off-duty police officer, was charged with assault causing bodily harm after taking down a 19-year-old who had sold a fake Apple watch to his colleague.

The accused pursued the seller and tackled him to the ground after the colleague had already retrieved the money.

The court rejected the accused's defences under sections 25 (lawful arrest) and 35 (defence of property) of the Criminal Code, finding he did not intend to arrest the seller and the force used was excessive.

However, the court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the takedown caused the victim's head bruise.

The accused was found not guilty of assault causing bodily harm, but guilty of the included offence of assault.

The defendants applied under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence, including a loaded handgun and drugs, found during a warrantless search of their vehicle following a traffic stop.

They alleged violations of their rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter, including claims of racial profiling.

The court dismissed the s. 8, s. 9, and s. 10(a) claims, finding the stop was lawful and the search was authorized under the Cannabis Control Act.

The court found moderate breaches of s. 10(b) regarding the implementation of the right to counsel.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2), as the breaches were not causally connected to the discovery of the evidence and exclusion would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.