B. Brown

The accused were charged with firearms offences after police entered a condominium unit under exigent circumstances to check on the welfare of a young female.

After the female was safely removed, police arbitrarily detained the accused for an extended period without advising them of the reasons for detention or their rights to counsel.

During a search incident to the arrest of one of the accused, police seized a satchel containing a firearm that was outside his physical control.

The court found multiple egregious breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the firearm evidence under section 24(2), finding that the cumulative police misconduct would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused, a transgender woman, was charged with assault with a weapon, multiple counts of assault with intent to resist arrest, mischief, and breach of probation following an altercation outside a store and her subsequent arrest.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging excessive use of force by police under sections 7 and 12.

The court reviewed extensive body-worn camera footage and civilian testimony, rejecting the accused's claims of self-defence and police brutality.

The court found the police used reasonable and proportionate force to effect a lawful arrest against an actively resisting individual.

The accused was found guilty on all counts except one count of assaulting a police officer.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm and failing to remain at the scene of an accident after driving her vehicle over her friend's foot and leg following an argument.

The accused claimed she fled in a state of fear or 'fight or flight' mode.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding she drove away in anger, not fear, and that her actions constituted a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent driver.

The court also found the accused was wilfully blind to the injuries caused.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The offender pleaded guilty to contravening Ontario Securities law by acting as a general manager of a transfer agency while subject to a prohibition order.

The Crown sought a fine and probation, while the defence sought a suspended sentence and probation.

The court found that the offender's conduct was a mistake of law, openly disclosed, and resulted in no financial loss to anyone.

Considering the offender's severe financial hardship, remorse, and a suicide attempt upon learning of the investigation, the court applied the principles of proportionality and restraint, concluding that a fine would be unfit.

A suspended sentence with two years of probation was imposed.

The offender was sentenced for his participation in the G20 riots in Toronto, where he masked his face and engaged in a continuous pattern of vandalism, including attacking a marked police cruiser with a vulnerable officer inside.

The court emphasized general deterrence and denunciation, rejecting a conditional sentence.

The offender was sentenced to 10 months' incarceration, followed by two years of probation with conditions restricting his conduct at future protests.