A. Robbins

The accused, an airport employee charged with importing cocaine and firearms offences, applied for a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on a new release plan with substantial sureties.

However, after conducting a fresh analysis, the court dismissed the application, finding that detention remained necessary on both the secondary ground (substantial likelihood of reoffending) and the tertiary ground (maintaining confidence in the administration of justice) given the overwhelming evidence, the gravity of the offences, and the accused's access to firearms.

The accused, charged with second degree murder and aggravated assault, applied for the production of medical and counselling records of the Crown's key witness.

The applicant argued the records were necessary to make full answer and defence, as they related to the witness's credibility, reliability, and inconsistent statements.

The court applied the O'Connor and McNeil frameworks and found the records were likely relevant.

After reviewing the records, the court ordered partial production subject to redactions and strict conditions to balance the accused's right to make full answer and defence with the witness's privacy interests.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder and aggravated assault, brought an application to sit at counsel table rather than in the prisoner's dock during his trial.

The defence argued that sitting in the dock carried a stigma and that sitting at counsel table would facilitate communication.

The Crown opposed, citing security concerns and the lack of exceptional circumstances.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the customary position is in the dock, the accused failed to show exceptional circumstances, and there were valid security concerns given his criminal record and outstanding charges for violent offences in custody.

The Crown applied under s. 489 and s. 490(9.1) of the Criminal Code for the continued detention of items seized from the respondents during a complex murder investigation.

While proceedings against one respondent were previously discontinued, the police continued to investigate the other respondent for murder.

The court ordered the return of several items with no evidentiary value.

However, the court granted the continued detention of the remaining items, finding they might reasonably be required for the ongoing investigation and that their detention was in the interests of justice despite delays in forensic analysis.

The applicants, charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, brought applications under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter alleging arbitrary detention and unreasonable search and seizure.

The police stopped the applicants' vehicle on the highway and conducted a warrantless search, discovering cocaine.

The court found the detaining officer lacked reasonable grounds to suspect the applicants were involved in a drug transaction, rendering the detention arbitrary.

Furthermore, the court found the search of the vehicle occurred before the arrest, making it unreasonable.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded the police conduct was deliberate or reckless and excluded the cocaine from evidence.