Beverley Olesko

The accused called 911 after finding his girlfriend unconscious from a drug overdose.

After paramedics took her to the hospital, police remained in the apartment, detained the accused without advising him of his rights, and conducted a warrantless search, discovering firearms and drugs.

The court found multiple egregious Charter breaches, including arbitrary detention (s. 9), failure to provide right to counsel (s. 10), and unlawful search and seizure (s. 8).

The subsequent search warrant was quashed as it relied on tainted evidence.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court excluded the firearms and drugs due to the seriousness of the police misconduct and its impact on the accused's rights.

All charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder after his spouse, who suffered from COPD, died when her home oxygen was turned off.

During the medical emergency response, the accused made several statements to police officers and a paramedic.

The defence brought an application to exclude the statements, arguing they were involuntary and obtained in violation of ss. 7, 9, and 10 of the Charter.

The court found that statements made to the first responding officers and the paramedic were voluntary and admissible, as the accused was not detained and the paramedic was not a person in authority.

However, the court found a s. 10(b) Charter breach occurred when officers told the accused he would be arrested but delayed advising him of his right to counsel.

Statements made after this breach were excluded under s. 24(2).

The accused was found guilty of firearm, ammunition, and drug charges, as well as breaching court orders, following a high-risk police takedown.

The accused was in possession of a loaded restricted firearm while evading police on an outstanding attempted murder warrant and while subject to weapons prohibitions.

The court sentenced the accused to a global term of four years' imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for illegal handgun possession.

The accused was arrested following a high-risk police takedown while driving a vehicle.

A search of the accused yielded drugs and ammunition, and a subsequent search of the vehicle's trunk revealed a loaded handgun alongside the accused's personal belongings.

The defence argued that police planted the personal items in the trunk to link the accused to the firearm.

The court rejected the defence's evidence, applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility, and found the accused guilty of all 16 firearms, drugs, and breach of probation charges.

The applicant, wanted for attempted murder, was arrested during a high-risk police takedown.

During the arrest, an officer broke the driver's side window with a shotgun, accidentally striking the applicant's head and causing lacerations.

The applicant brought an application under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging excessive force in violation of his ss. 7 and 12 rights, and sought a stay of proceedings.

The court dismissed the application, finding the officer's actions were objectively reasonable and proportionate given the applicant's non-compliance and the officer's belief that the applicant was reaching for a firearm.

The offender was convicted of second degree murder by a jury for the manual strangulation of a disabled drug dealer.

The Crown sought a parole ineligibility period of 12 to 15 years, while the defence sought the statutory minimum of 10 years.

The court considered the aggravating factors, including the breach of trust, the victim's vulnerability, and the theft of drugs and money.

The court also considered the offender's Indigenous background and the Gladue factors, which contributed to his substance abuse issues.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with a parole ineligibility period of 11 years, reducing it from 12 years to reflect the Gladue factors.