3 total
Bail pending sentencing denied due to history of breaches and gravity of fentanyl trafficking offence.
The applicant pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and sought interim judicial release pending sentencing on humanitarian grounds to visit terminally ill family members.
The court determined that section 523(2)(a) of the Criminal Code applied, not section 679 or 525.
The court denied bail, finding that the applicant's history of breaching court orders raised primary and secondary ground concerns, and the gravity of trafficking fentanyl necessitated detention on the tertiary ground to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.
Evidence from an invalid consent search was excluded for the owner, not the driver.
This decision addresses Charter applications by Jonathan Cumming and Lenore Westendorp to exclude evidence obtained during a traffic stop and subsequent search.
The court found that Ms. Westendorp’s section 8 Charter rights were breached by an unreasonable search of her vehicle, as her consent was not fully informed or voluntary.
The evidence was excluded as against her.
Mr. Cumming, as a suspended driver, was found to have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle and thus lacked standing to challenge the search under section 8.
The court clarified that exclusion of evidence can apply to one accused but not another, depending on whose Charter rights were violated.
Motion to stay municipal by-law enforcement application denied; farm board lacks jurisdiction over zoning compliance.
The applicant municipality brought an application for an injunction to restrain the respondent from growing cannabis on his property in contravention of municipal by-laws.
The respondent brought a motion to stay the application, arguing that the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board had exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether his cannabis cultivation was a 'normal farm practice'.
The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the Board's jurisdiction is limited to issues of disturbance and does not extend to broad land-use planning and zoning by-law compliance, which form the core of the municipality's application.
