Brian Dube

The accused brought a supplementary application under s. 24(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude expert opinion evidence, arguing it was tainted by physical evidence previously found to be obtained in violation of his Charter rights.

The court dismissed the application, holding that expert opinion evidence does not constitute 'evidence obtained in a manner that infringed' Charter rights for the purpose of s. 24(2) exclusion.

The court clarified that s. 24(2) applies to physical, bodily, or derivative evidence, and that the admission of the expert opinion would not adversely affect the accused's ability to make full answer and defence.

The accused was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by police.

After observing cannabis in the vehicle, officers detained the accused, who provided a false name.

The officers prolonged the detention to ascertain his identity and lifted his shirt to reveal identifying tattoos, leading to his arrest for breaching a release order and the discovery of cocaine.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found breaches of ss. 8, 10(a), and 10(b), but concluded under s. 24(2) that the evidence should not be excluded because the accused's obstructive conduct mitigated the seriousness of the breaches.

Two young persons were jointly charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and possession of a stolen motor vehicle.

A third count of mischief was charged against one accused alone.

The incident occurred in Windsor on March 14, 2019, when the accused parked a stolen vehicle in a parking lot.

The property manager confronted the accused, sprayed brake fluid in his face, and a physical altercation ensued.

During the fight, the complainant was stabbed by an unknown assailant.

The court acquitted one accused of all charges due to insufficient evidence.

The other accused was acquitted of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon on grounds of lawful self-defence, but convicted of possession of the stolen vehicle and mischief.

The accused sought a stay of proceedings for abuse of process, arguing the Crown improperly repudiated a plea agreement and disclosed the accused's intention to plead guilty to witnesses.

The court found that the cumulative effect of the Crown's conduct—the arbitrary repudiation of a judicially approved plea agreement without full inquiry and the premature disclosure of the plea to witnesses—deprived the accused of the right to a fair trial under s. 7 of the Charter.

Instead of a stay, the court ordered the enforcement of the original plea agreement as a just and appropriate remedy.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm and drug offences.

The police conducted warrantless searches of the accused's rental property based on the consent of the landlord (the accused's mother).

The court found that the landlord did not have the authority to consent to the search of the tenant's residence, resulting in a breach of the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court excluded the firearm, marijuana, and a portion of the cocaine from evidence, finding that their admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute due to the seriousness of the police conduct.

At the commencement of their trial for a home invasion and assault, the accused brought an application to admit evidence of unknown third-party suspects.

The defence sought to cross-examine the complainant on three prior break-and-enter incidents and introduce Facebook photos of the complainant with firearms, arguing the attack was perpetrated by individuals in the drug subculture rather than the accused.

The court dismissed the application, finding an insufficient connection between the prior incidents and the current crime to meet the relevancy threshold required for third-party suspect evidence.

The accused is charged with first-degree murder and aggravated sexual assault.

He intends to plead guilty to manslaughter, arguing he lacked the requisite mens rea for murder due to severe alcohol intoxication.

In these pre-trial motions, the court ruled on the admissibility of evidence.

The court admitted the accused's post-arrest exculpatory statements by agreement.

The court allowed some evidence of the accused's uncharged disreputable conduct (an assault and disarming a neighbour) to show his mental state, but excluded highly prejudicial details like theft and name-calling.

Finally, the court ruled that statements made by the accused while pinned down by civilians making a citizen's arrest were admissible, finding the civilians were not 'persons in authority' and the statements were voluntary.

Six accused persons charged with offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and related Criminal Code firearms charges made dissimilar elections as to mode of trial.

Some accused elected trial by judge and jury, while others elected trial by provincial court judge.

Some accused subsequently re-elected without obtaining written Crown consent as required by statute.

The court addressed whether a justice presiding at a preliminary inquiry has residual jurisdiction to remedy or disregard recorded elections to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The court held that elections and re-elections as recorded must stand, and that a justice has no power to strike down or disregard a recorded election after the fact.

In a judge-alone criminal trial involving historical allegations of intra-family sexual and physical abuse, the court applied the W.(D.) credibility framework and rejected the accused's blanket denial.

The court found the complainant credible and reliable on the essential facts despite inconsistencies on peripheral details, and held that those frailties were explicable given the complainant's childhood age during the events and the family's highly isolated environment.

Prior admitted sexual assaults against the complainant were not used broadly for propensity reasoning; under the Handy framework, they were given only limited narrative use.

The court entered findings of guilt for sexual interference, sexual assault, indecent act, and assault, dismissed one assault count on consent, and stayed one sexual assault count.

Sentencing decision following convictions for attempted murder, criminal harassment, breach of recognizance, criminal negligence causing bodily harm with a motor vehicle, and failure to remain at the scene of an accident.

The offences arose from obsessive harassment of a former romantic partner culminating in the accused intentionally striking the partner’s new companion with a vehicle.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence in domestic‑context attempted murder cases but also considered the offender’s advanced age, severe health issues, lack of prior criminal record, and lengthy history of positive community contributions as mitigating factors.

A six‑year sentence for attempted murder was imposed with concurrent sentences on the remaining counts.

The court also granted enhanced credit of 1.5:1 for pre‑trial custody due to the unusually harsh impact of incarceration on the offender’s health.