Andrew McAllister

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.

The accused, detained for over six months without a judicial interim release hearing, sought a 90-day bail detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

Despite a lengthy criminal record and a history of breaching release orders, the accused had been accepted into a residential addiction treatment program.

The court applied the Antic-ladder principle and the Supreme Court's guidance in R. v. Myers, emphasizing that pre-trial detention is the exception and release is favoured.

Considering the significant time already spent in pre-trial custody and the structured nature of the proposed treatment program, the court found that the continued detention was no longer justified.

The accused was ordered released to the treatment facility under strict conditions.

The applicant sought a bail review following his detention on charges including drug trafficking, weapons offences, and assault causing bodily harm.

The reviewing judge found the Justice of the Peace failed to provide sufficient reasons on the tertiary grounds, allowing for a review de novo.

However, the court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet his onus on both the secondary and tertiary grounds due to his extensive criminal record, history of breaching court orders, and the gravity of the current allegations.

The accused, David Gaudet, sought a detention review under section 525 of the Criminal Code after being detained on the secondary ground for five months.

The court considered the impact of the pandemic, the accused's Indigenous identity and Gladue principles, the strength of the Crown's case, and new information regarding the accused's stability and medical condition (asthma).

Despite the original detention being justified, the court found continued detention disproportionate given the indeterminate trial delay, suspension of Indigenous support services, and the accused's demonstrated ability to comply with strict conditions.

The accused was released into house confinement with a surety.

The Crown appealed an acquittal in a prosecution under the Smoke Free Ontario Act for selling tobacco to a minor.

The respondent corporation operated a truck stop convenience store where a 17-year-old purchased cigarettes without being asked for identification.

The Crown alleged the trial justice erred in finding the respondent established the due diligence defence.

The appeal court upheld the acquittal, finding the respondent had implemented comprehensive training, supervision, and compliance measures that resulted in three years of successful compliance checks following prior enforcement notices.