Andre White

The applicant sought leave under R. v. Garofoli to cross-examine the affiant of Informations to Obtain (ITOs) for three search warrants.

The applicant argued the affiant omitted facts and had an ulterior motive to search for drugs rather than evidence of the stabbing.

The court reviewed the timeline and found that the allegedly omitted information was not known to police until after the first ITO was sworn.

The court dismissed the application, concluding the applicant failed to show a reasonable likelihood that cross-examination would assist in determining whether the necessary grounds existed for the issuance of the warrants.

During a trial for domestic assault, the Crown brought an application to admit the complainant's prior audio-recorded out-of-court statement for its truth after she recanted her evidence on the stand.

The court applied the principled approach to hearsay, focusing on threshold reliability.

The court found that procedural reliability was established because the statement was audio-recorded, the complainant was available for meaningful cross-examination at trial, and she understood the importance of telling the truth to the police.

The application was granted and the statement was admitted.

The offender, an Indigenous woman, was found guilty of robbery after participating in a planned home invasion to steal fentanyl from a vulnerable 67-year-old victim.

The Crown sought 21-24 months in custody, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

Applying Gladue principles and considering the offender's significant rehabilitation, lack of future risk, and the recent Sharma decision allowing conditional sentences in these circumstances, the court imposed a 24-month conditional sentence followed by 12 months of probation.

The accused, Sauve and Stewart, were charged with various weapons offences after police seized a handgun and ammunition from a backpack carried by Stewart.

The Crown alleged they jointly possessed and transferred the firearm.

The court found insufficient evidence that Stewart knew the backpack contained a firearm, resulting in his acquittal on all counts.

For Sauve, the court found he was wilfully blind to the fact he was picking up a firearm, establishing possession.

However, the Crown failed to prove he knew about the ammunition, possessed it for a dangerous purpose, or knew it was obtained by an offence.

Sauve was found guilty of careless transport and transferring a prohibited firearm, as he handed the backpack to Stewart knowing it contained a gun.

The applicants, charged with firearms offences, brought pre-trial applications alleging breaches of their Charter rights and seeking the exclusion of a handgun and ammunition found in a backpack.

The police detained one of the applicants under the Customs Act after observing suspicious activity near the St. Lawrence River.

The court found the detention was lawful under s. 9 of the Charter, but the subsequent warrantless search of the backpack violated s. 8 as it did not meet the standard for a safety search.

The court also found breaches of the applicant's s. 10(a) and 10(b) rights.

However, applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court concluded that the evidence should not be excluded, as the breaches were not wilful or flagrant, the evidence was reliable and discoverable, and its exclusion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The evidence was ruled admissible against both applicants.

The Crown sought estreatment of a $5,000 recognizance bond following the accused’s breaches of bail conditions and subsequent convictions for fraud-related offences and failing to comply with recognizance.

The defence argued that the Certificate of Default (Form 33) was invalid because it was not signed by the judicial officer and inadequately described the default as “fail to comply.” The court held that the absence of a signature and the wording on the form did not invalidate the certificate where the court record and transcript clearly established a judicial finding of default and defence counsel had consented to the process.

Applying s. 771(2) of the Criminal Code, the court concluded the accused had not met the burden of demonstrating why the full pledged amount should not be forfeited.

The court ordered the full $5,000 bond estreated to the Crown.