Beverley A. Olesko

Raza Husain applied to terminate a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order, imposed in 2011 following convictions for sexual assault and procuring.

The application was brought under the new s. 490.016(1) of the Criminal Code, which allows termination if there is no connection between continuing the order and preventing/investigating sexual crimes, or if the impact on the applicant is grossly disproportionate to the public interest.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate either no connection or gross disproportionality, citing the serious nature of the original offences, lack of expert evidence on re-offending risk, and insufficient evidence of disproportionate impact on the applicant's privacy or liberty.

Josiph Cardle, charged with first-degree murder, applied for judicial interim release.

The court considered the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds for detention under s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

While the gravity of the offence and potential sentence were significant, the court found no substantial likelihood of flight or risk to public safety.

Crucially, the court determined that the apparent strength of the Crown's case for first-degree murder was not strong, citing issues with causation and the accused's understanding of the oxygen machine's role.

The court also emphasized that poverty and homelessness should not be a basis for detention.

Cardle was released on a recognizance with conditions, without a surety or fixed residential address.

The defendant, Justin Wallace, brought two motions during his criminal trial.

The first sought a stay of proceedings under ss. 7 and 24(1) of the Charter due to lost preliminary inquiry evidence (cross-examination transcript of a complainant).

The second sought to exclude a BB gun under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b), and 24(2) of the Charter, alleging arbitrary detention, unlawful search, and delayed right to counsel.

The court dismissed both motions, finding no actual prejudice to the right to make full answer and defence regarding the lost evidence, and no Charter breaches regarding the detention and search, accepting the officers' credibility over the defendant's.

The defendant, an inmate, was attacked by other inmates in a detention centre.

He defended himself using a makeshift weapon and was subsequently charged with assault and assault with a weapon.

The court examined the evidence, including security video, and the defendant's claim of self-defense under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the defendant's use of force, including a weapon, was reasonable given the circumstances of a violent prison environment where official intervention was slow and inadequate.

The defendant was found not guilty of all charges.