A. Sandberg

The accused was charged with multiple firearm-related offences following the discovery of two unregistered revolvers in a garbage area outside his former residence.

The Crown's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence and statements made by the accused to police.

The court found multiple Charter breaches: a section 10(b) violation when the accused was psychologically detained and questioned without being advised of his right to counsel, and section 8 violations relating to an unjustified strip search conducted without proper grounds and not in private.

The court excluded the accused's statements as a remedy under section 24(2) of the Charter.

On the merits, the court found that the Crown failed to prove possession of the firearms beyond a reasonable doubt, both without the excluded statements and, alternatively, on the basis that the accused's complete forgetfulness about the firearms negated the required mens rea for constructive possession on the date in question.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused was charged with operation of a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug following a minor property damage accident.

Police observed signs of impairment and conducted a Drug Recognition Evaluation, which indicated the presence of Lorazepam and an inactive cannabinoid metabolite in the accused's urine.

The Crown sought to prove impairment by drug beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that while there was evidence of impairment, the Crown failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the impairment was caused by the drugs found in the accused's system, as urine testing cannot reliably determine the timing or concentration of drug ingestion or its effects at the time of driving.

The accused was acquitted.