A. Burns

M.S. brought an application under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that his right to trial within a reasonable time had been infringed, as the expected completion date of his trial for historical sexual offences exceeded the presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown argued for deductions for defense delay and exceptional circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found no deductible defense delay but determined that the delay caused by the adjournment of the first trial date due to COVID-19 directives constituted an exceptional circumstance.

After deducting this period, the total delay fell below the Jordan threshold.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The accused was charged with Assault Causing Bodily Harm following an altercation with a pedestrian at an intersection.

The accused claimed self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code, alleging the complainant made a verbal threat while reaching into his pocket.

The court rejected the self-defence claim, finding the accused's testimony implausible and inconsistent with independent witness evidence.

The court found the assault was retaliatory aggression for the complainant kicking the accused's vehicle.

The court also found the complainant's injuries constituted bodily harm.

The accused was convicted.

The accused was charged with failing or refusing to comply with a breath demand made pursuant to section 254(2) of the Criminal Code.

A civilian witness reported a possible impaired driver, and police conducted a traffic stop.

The officer made a demand for a breath sample into an Approved Screening Device (ASD).

The Crown alleged the accused failed to provide a suitable sample through feigned attempts and by verbal refusal.

The court found the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally failed or refused to provide a sample, nor that the accused unequivocally expressed an intention to refuse.

The accused was acquitted.

The applicant, Malcolm Alpha King Cassells, sought to exclude evidence obtained from a warrantless search of a residence and his person, arguing breaches of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Police entered a residence without a warrant based on perceived exigent circumstances and arrested the applicant without reasonable and probable grounds.

A search incident to arrest yielded currency and cocaine.

The court found the arrest unlawful, breaching the applicant's s. 9 rights, and the subsequent searches incident to arrest breached his s. 8 rights.

Applying the *Grant* test, the court determined that admitting the evidence (currency, cocaine, and police observations of the applicant's location) would bring the administration of justice into disrepute due to the seriousness of police conduct, the impact on Charter-protected interests, and the diminished reliability of the evidence.

The application to exclude the evidence was granted.

The accused was charged with possession of marijuana and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following a traffic stop for speeding.

The defence alleged seven separate Charter breaches relating to arbitrary detention and unreasonable search.

The court found that only the arrest for driving with a suspended license constituted Charter breaches, but declined to grant a stay of proceedings.

The court upheld the lawfulness of the inventory search of the vehicle and the subsequent arrest for marijuana possession.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The accused was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking under s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act after police discovered approximately 41 kilograms (90 pounds) of marijuana stored in a rental storage unit.

The accused held Health Canada-issued production licences permitting him to grow 176 plants and possess approximately 17.5 pounds of marijuana at his residence, plus an authorization to possess 450 grams of dried marijuana.

The accused claimed the excess marijuana resulted from an unexpectedly large first crop and that he stored it temporarily while seeking advice from Health Canada on proper disposal, motivated by security concerns following an attempted robbery at a neighbouring grower's property.

The court rejected the accused's explanation as defying common sense, logic, and human experience, finding the accused guilty as charged.