C. Demelo

The accused brought an application under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter, challenging the validity of a search warrant executed at his residence.

The warrant was based on an Information to Obtain (ITO) that relied on a confidential informant.

The court reviewed the redacted ITO and a judicial summary, concluding that the issuing justice had sufficient credible and reliable evidence to find reasonable grounds for the search.

The court further held that even if a s. 8 breach had occurred, the evidence (a handgun) would not be excluded under s. 24(2) as its admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The application was dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter and break, enter, and robbery following a violent home invasion.

The offender and three armed associates broke into a residence to confront the victim over a fraudulent investment, resulting in the victim being beaten and fatally shot.

The court weighed the extreme gravity of the offence and the offender's high moral blameworthiness against mitigating factors including his youth, guilty plea, lack of prior record, and strong community support.

The court rejected the application of the Morris framework for anti-Black racism, finding no causal connection to the offences.

The offender was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for manslaughter, with a concurrent 2.5-year sentence for the break and enter, less credit for pre-trial custody and house arrest.

The offender pled guilty to possessing a loaded handgun in a motor vehicle without authorization.

The court considered the impact of systemic anti-black racism and the offender's experiences as a biracial youth, applying the principles from R. v. Morris.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for gun crimes, the court imposed a sentence of 3 years and 6 months, reduced to 25 months after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions.

The applicant, charged with fraud and theft over $5000, sought a Rowbotham order for state-funded counsel after being denied Legal Aid.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to exhaust his Legal Aid appeals, was not indigent given his household income and discretionary spending, and that the straightforward nature of the charges did not necessitate counsel to ensure a fair trial.