Brennan Smart

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their claim for damages arising from their detention and search by police officers.

The officers had detained, handcuffed, and searched the appellants while investigating a break and enter, despite the appellants not matching the suspect descriptions.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error in concluding there were reasonable grounds for investigative detention.

The court also found the appellants were de facto arrested, not merely detained.

The court awarded each appellant $500 in damages for false arrest and imprisonment.

The appellants appealed a small claims court decision dismissing their claim for damages arising from their detention and search by police officers.

The officers were investigating a break and enter and detained the appellants as they walked past the scene.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error in concluding there were reasonable grounds for investigative detention.

The court also found the appellants were de facto arrested, not merely detained.

However, the court upheld the finding that the search for weapons was reasonable.

The appellants were each awarded $500 in damages for false arrest and imprisonment.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving over 80 after a single-vehicle rollover accident.

At a blended trial and Charter application, the accused argued his s. 7 rights were violated because his admission to being the driver was compelled by the Highway Traffic Act, and his s. 10(b) rights were violated because police did not allow him to call his parents to help find a lawyer.

The court dismissed the application, finding the admission was not made under statutory compulsion as it was a brief exchange during initial investigation, not an accident report.

The court also found no s. 10(b) breach, as the accused did not explain why he wanted to call his parents and was not reasonably diligent in exercising his right to counsel after being given multiple opportunities.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's order staying the respondent's second-degree murder trial for abuse of process and unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The trial judge had found over 150 Charter breaches by police and Crown counsel.

On appeal, the respondent conceded the trial judge's findings were unsupportable but argued the stay should be upheld because her trial counsel's incompetence caused the delay.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, finding no evidence the respondent was unaware of her counsel's strategy, and set aside the stay of proceedings and costs order, directing a new trial.