Ayderus Alawi

The accused was arrested on a Feeney warrant by the Emergency Task Force.

During the dynamic entry, an officer stomped on the accused's head, causing injury.

Police subsequently searched a backpack found in the unit, discovering cocaine and cash, which they used to obtain a search warrant for the unit.

The search yielded a loaded prohibited firearm, ammunition, and large quantities of drugs.

The court found breaches of the accused's s. 7 rights (excessive force) and s. 8 rights (unlawful search of the backpack and unit), but declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) due to the high public interest in adjudicating the serious firearm and drug charges.

At trial, the accused was acquitted of the drug charges due to reasonable doubt about his knowledge and control of the substances, but convicted of the firearm charges based on his admission of ownership.

The offender pleaded guilty to possessing a loaded, prohibited firearm after fleeing from a residence during the execution of a search warrant.

The Crown sought a 30-month sentence, while the defence sought 18 months, citing harsh remand conditions and systemic racism detailed in an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report.

The court found no causal link between the offender's experiences with anti-Black racism and the offence, but granted mitigation for harsh pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions.

The court imposed a 30-month sentence, reduced to 417 days net after applying Summers credit for pre-sentence custody, along with 18 months of probation.

The applicant, charged with conspiracy to import cocaine, brought a Rowbotham application for state-funded counsel after being refused Legal Aid.

The Crown conceded the complexity of the trial and the Legal Aid refusal, but challenged the financial requirement.

The court found that despite earning approximately $70,000 per year, the applicant could not afford the estimated $140,000 private retainer for the complex 10-week trial.

The court granted the application, imposing a conditional stay subject to the Attorney General funding counsel, with the applicant agreeing to contribute $12,000 towards his legal fees.

The offender was found guilty of simple assault after initiating a brawl outside a nightclub.

Although the victim suffered severe stab wounds, the court found that another individual inflicted those injuries while the offender was pinned to the ground.

The Crown sought 30 days incarceration or a 60-day conditional sentence, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

Emphasizing the offender's positive pre-sentence report, lack of prior record, and the principle of proportionality, the court granted a conditional discharge with six months of probation and 50 hours of community service.

The accused was stopped by police in a residential building stairwell while they were investigating drug and gun activity.

The police detained and arrested the accused for possession of marijuana based on an alleged smell of marijuana and an alleged spontaneous admission.

A subsequent warrantless search revealed a loaded firearm, crack cocaine, powder cocaine, marijuana, and cash.

The court found the police lacked reasonable grounds for the detention and arrest, rejecting the officers' evidence regarding the smell of marijuana.

The court found multiple Charter violations, including arbitrary detention (s. 9), unreasonable search (s. 8), and failure to provide prompt rights to counsel (s. 10).

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court excluded the evidence due to the serious and cumulative nature of the police misconduct.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 523(2)(c) of the Criminal Code, proposing the use of an electronic monitoring device as a material change in circumstances.

The applicant had previously been detained on the secondary ground due to a history of re-offending while on bail under the supervision of his parents.

The court dismissed the application, finding that electronic monitoring only establishes location and does not displace the need for capable sureties, especially given the family's past failure to prevent breaches.

At the close of the Crown's case in a jury trial for conspiracy to commit murder and related firearms offences, the accused moved for a directed verdict of acquittal on the conspiracy count.

The accused argued there was no evidence they participated in a conspiracy to murder the complainant.

The court reviewed the circumstantial evidence, including a prior bank fraud involving the parties, cell phone communications, video surveillance of the accused acting in concert, and the coordinated ambush of the complainant.

Applying the test for a directed verdict, the court found there was some admissible evidence upon which a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could infer an agreement to murder the complainant.

The application for a directed verdict was dismissed.

Prior to the testimony of the complainant in a trial for conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder, the parties sought a ruling on the permissible scope of cross-examination regarding the complainant's prior acts of misconduct.

The court ruled that defence counsel could cross-examine the complainant on the factual details underlying his prior convictions, withdrawn charges, and uncharged misconduct detailed in police occurrence reports, provided there was a good faith basis.

However, defence counsel could not cross-examine the complainant on the factual allegations underlying charges for which he was acquitted, as an acquittal represents a verdict of legal innocence, though they could question him on accompanying uncharged fraudulent activities.

Following a finding of guilt for drug trafficking and related offences, the defendant brought an application for a stay of proceedings based on entrapment.

The defendant argued that the police provided him with an opportunity to commit an offence without reasonable suspicion.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the police were legitimately following up on a confidential informant's tip and that the defendant's own responses to an undercover officer's initial inquiries established the requisite reasonable suspicion before any opportunity to traffic was offered.

The accused was charged with two counts of trafficking in cocaine, two counts of possession of the proceeds of crime, and one count of obstructing justice arising from undercover police drug transactions.

An undercover officer arranged drug purchases through telephone conversations and later met the accused in person for a transaction, during which the accused attempted to conceal the drugs in his mouth when police approached.

The court rejected the defence argument that voice identification and phone evidence were unreliable, finding that visual identification and surrounding circumstances clearly established the accused’s role in arranging and conducting the transactions.

The court concluded that the accused trafficked cocaine and attempted to obstruct police during arrest.

However, the Crown failed to prove that additional cash found in the accused’s wallet constituted proceeds of crime.

The accused were arrested during a high-risk takedown following an undercover police operation targeting a ketamine drug transaction.

One accused was charged with trafficking and possession of marihuana, but the court found the Crown failed to prove his knowledge or involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittals.

The other accused admitted to trafficking but brought a Charter application alleging police used excessive force during his arrest, including kicking him in the head while handcuffed.

The court found on a balance of probabilities that unknown officers subjected the accused to excessive and gratuitous force, breaching his s. 7 and s. 12 Charter rights.

Consequently, the charges against him were stayed pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter.