Arjun Rudra

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded, restricted firearm, careless use of a firearm resulting in injury, and possession of cocaine for trafficking.

The court imposed a global five-year sentence with credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a two-year custodial term followed by three years of probation.

The decision extensively addresses systemic racism, the deplorable conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre, and the impact of family separation on the offender's children.

The court balanced denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, restraint, and consideration of the offender's difficult life experiences and strong family support.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault, brought a Stage 2 application under section 276 of the Criminal Code to adduce evidence of prior sexual activity, specifically a "morning after" consensual sexual encounter.

The court allowed the application, finding the evidence relevant to explain the presence of semen and to the coherence of the defence narrative, without engaging "twin myth" reasoning.

The court limited the scope of questioning to the source of the ejaculate, prohibiting its use to generally impugn the complainant's credibility based on omissions in her police statement.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence (two firearms) found during a vehicle stop and search.

They alleged racial profiling, lack of grounds for the Cannabis Control Act (CCA) search, and violations of their s. 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights.

The court found no racial profiling and determined that the strong smell of fresh marijuana provided valid grounds for the CCA search.

While s. 10(a) rights were not breached, the court found a serious violation of the accused's s. 10(b) rights due to "lackadaisical" police conduct at the station, resulting in significant delays in facilitating access to counsel of choice.

However, applying the Grant factors under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the long-term repute of the justice system would be better served by admitting the evidence, given its reliability, the minimal impact of the breach on the accused (who eventually spoke to counsel), and society's strong interest in adjudicating serious charges on their merits.

The application for exclusion of evidence was dismissed.

The applicant, a 19-year-old charged with second degree murder, applied for judicial interim release.

The Crown opposed release on all three grounds, emphasizing the tertiary ground given the gravity of the charge.

The court found that the proposed plan of strict house arrest, constant supervision by the applicant's parents as sureties, and GPS ankle monitoring sufficiently mitigated the risks under the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds.

The court granted release but increased the proposed monetary pledge from $25,000 to $150,000 to ensure the sureties and the applicant had sufficient financial incentive to comply with the strict conditions.

The defendant sought to raise a Charter section 8 application challenging the lawfulness of a breath demand at the close of the Crown's case in an impaired driving trial.

The defendant argued that the officer's use of the word "breathalyzer" in describing the demand rendered it invalid.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the defendant had failed to provide advance notice of the Charter application despite having twelve months to do so, and that raising the issue at the close of the Crown's case would impede the trial process and render it unfair to the witness.