B. Glendinning

The accused, Mr. Hifato, applied for a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, seeking release into a residential drug treatment program with his sister as surety.

He faced serious charges including robbery, assault with a weapon, and firearm possession contrary to a prohibition order, and had an extensive criminal record rooted in substance abuse.

The Crown conceded a material change in circumstances due to the treatment plan but argued the plan was insufficient to address public risk and that release would undermine confidence in the administration of justice.

The court found that the accused failed to meet his onus under both secondary and tertiary grounds, as the proposed plan lacked sufficient external controls to prevent re-offending, and the seriousness of the offences, strong Crown case, and extensive criminal history necessitated detention to maintain public confidence.

The application for bail review was dismissed.

The applicant, Ishmael Robinson, challenged his inclusion as a target in a wiretap authorization (Auth #1) under s. 185(1)(e) of the Criminal Code, seeking exclusion of intercepted communications under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

He argued that the grounds in the information to obtain (ITO) were vague and stale.

The Crown contended that the grounds, viewed holistically, met the low threshold for naming individuals in an ITO.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the cumulative effect of the grounds established reasonable belief that the applicant's communications would assist the ongoing investigation, and the information was not stale given the large-scale nature of the criminal organization investigation.

The applicants, alleged members of the 'Five Point Generals' criminal organization, brought a Charter application challenging the validity of Tracking Data Warrants, Transmission Data Recording Warrants, and Part VI wiretap authorizations.

Two applicants argued there were insufficient grounds to link them to specific phone numbers, while the others argued they should not have been named in the Information to Obtain (ITO) as the conditions under s. 185(1)(e) of the Criminal Code were not met.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the police had reasonable grounds to believe the phone numbers were linked to the applicants and that there was sufficient evidence of association with the criminal organization to justify naming the other applicants in the ITO.

The Crown brought an application for certiorari to set aside a preliminary inquiry judge's decision discharging the respondent on a charge of first degree murder.

The respondent was present during an armed robbery and shooting at a restaurant but did not directly participate in the robbery or the killing, though he did briefly assault one of the victims.

The reviewing court found that the preliminary inquiry judge did not commit jurisdictional error in concluding there was insufficient evidence to commit the respondent for murder under either party liability or constructive murder provisions.

The application was dismissed.