Ameen Al Rohani

The applicant brought a Garofoli application challenging the validity of a search warrant and seeking to exclude seized evidence under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicant argued the information to obtain (ITO) the warrant lacked reasonable and probable grounds and contained misleading information.

The court found that the ITO disclosed sufficient reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant's issuance, thus no s. 8 Charter violation occurred.

The court also determined that, even if a s. 8 violation had occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, applying the Grant tripartite framework, as the breach was not serious, the impact on the applicant's Charter rights was not significant, and society's interest in the adjudication on the merits was high.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and being a party to sexual assault.

The central issues were the complainant's consent and capacity to consent.

The court applied the W.D. framework for credibility and considered circumstantial evidence, including the complainant's memory loss and expert testimony on drug/alcohol effects.

The court found that the Crown did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent or lacked capacity.

The accused was acquitted of both charges.

The accused, Russell Collins, was charged with operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80mg.

The defence challenged the officer's grounds for demanding a breath sample and the Crown's proof of a system calibration test.

The court found the officer's subjective grounds for suspicion were objectively reasonable, dismissing the Charter challenge.

The court also determined that the Crown had proven the calibration test was conducted with a certified alcohol standard, despite an ambiguous notation, by considering the totality of the evidence.

Consequently, the accused was found guilty as charged.

The Petitioners, Partap Dua and James McNair, brought a "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus" on behalf of Parmjit Kaur Deol, who was in pretrial detention.

The application alleged unlawful detention due to lack of Crown disclosure and inadequate information about court dates.

The court dismissed the application, finding the Petitioners failed to establish a ground to question the legality of Deol's liberty deprivation.

The court assumed standing for the Petitioners and found the absence of Ms. Deol at the hearing was not a bar.

Despite dismissing the application, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to order Ms. Deol's in-person appearance for disclosure and to address potential non-compliance with Criminal Code section 525(1).

The offender pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm for his role in a vicious, gang-style attack on a fellow inmate at a correctional facility.

The victim suffered a brain bleed and lingering effects.

The Crown sought 18-24 months in custody, while the defence sought 12 months.

The court considered the principles of denunciation, deterrence, and parity, noting a co-accused received 6 months for simple assault.

The offender was sentenced to 15 months in custody (net 198 days after pre-sentence credit) followed by two years of probation.