Chris Morris

This decision addresses the constitutionality of routine strip searches of young persons in pre-trial custody, focusing on four Black adolescent female applicants charged in the high-profile homicide of Kenneth Lee.

The court found that routine strip searches, conducted without individualized grounds or prior authorization and involving complete nudity, violated sections 7 and 8 of the Charter.

The court declined to grant a stay of proceedings, instead holding that the appropriate remedy was a reduction in sentence for any applicant found guilty, to reflect the Charter breach.

The ruling provides detailed analysis of the legal and regulatory framework, the psychological impact of strip searches, and the evolving standards for custodial searches in youth justice settings.

The accused, Yaas Abdillahi, was charged with possession of controlled substances for trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

During his arrest, police officers used excessive force, striking him on the head with loaded firearms, which was found to be a violation of his s. 7 Charter rights.

The accused sought a stay of proceedings or, alternatively, exclusion of evidence under s. 24(1) and s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found that while some force was justified, striking the accused with loaded firearms was unreasonable.

However, the court denied a stay of proceedings, finding the police conduct, though serious, not egregious enough for such a drastic remedy.

The court also denied the exclusion of evidence, balancing the moderate seriousness of the breach and its impact against society's interest in an adjudication on the merits, noting no causal connection between the breach and the evidence.

The accused was found guilty on the trafficking charge and not guilty on the proceeds of crime charge due to lack of evidence.

The Charter breach's impact on sentencing was reserved for a later hearing.

Deepak Prasad was found guilty of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered aggravating factors, including prior convictions and trafficking for profit, and mitigating factors such as youthfulness, rehabilitation efforts, family support, and remorse.

The Crown sought an 18-month sentence, while the defence proposed a suspended sentence with credit for time on bail.

The court imposed a global sentence of 11 months of incarceration, comprising 11 months for cocaine trafficking and one month concurrent for marijuana trafficking, followed by 12 months of probation with conditions.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The offenders were sentenced for their roles in an unprovoked and fatal beating of a stranger.

Patrick Smith was convicted of second degree murder and assault, and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a 12-year parole ineligibility period.

Matthew Moreira was convicted of manslaughter and robbery, and was sentenced to a total of 13 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court considered the brutal nature of the attack, the offenders' backgrounds, and the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The accused, Matthew Moreira and Patrick Smith, brought an application to stay charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter, assault, and robbery, pursuant to section 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to the end of the second trial was 32 months and 16 days, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in *R. v. Jordan*.

The Crown argued that the delay was justified by exceptional circumstances, specifically the complexity of the case and a mistrial declared during the first trial, which was deemed a discrete event.

The court found the case to be complex due to multiple accused, voluminous evidence, and challenging legal issues.

It also determined that the mistrial was an unforeseeable discrete event, and the Crown acted expeditiously to mitigate its impact.

Additionally, the court considered the transitional exception under *Jordan*, acknowledging that the system needed time to adapt to the new framework.

Consequently, the application to stay the charges was dismissed.

The Crown brought an application to admit the notes and property reports of a deceased police officer under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The officer, who had participated in the execution of search warrants related to the accused's drug charges, died of a fentanyl overdose before trial.

While necessity was conceded, the court found the Crown failed to establish threshold reliability.

The court noted inaccuracies in the officer's reports, potential inconsistencies with other evidence, and the inability to cross-examine the officer on his drug use and its potential impact on his perception and memory.

The application was dismissed.

Deepak Prasad brought an application under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude evidence (drugs and cash) seized from his residence and car following the execution of search warrants.

The Crown conceded that the redacted Information to Obtain (ITO) could not justify the warrants, leading to a "step six application" to consider unredacted portions.

The court found the judicial summary sufficient for the defence to challenge the warrant.

Applying the Debot criteria (credibility, compelling, and corroboration) holistically, the court determined that the issuing justice had reasonable and probable grounds to issue the warrants.

The information from confidential informants was found credible, compelling, and corroborated by police surveillance and investigation, establishing reasonable grounds to believe in ongoing drug trafficking and the presence of evidence in the specified locations.

Consequently, the application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The applicants, William Cummins and Matthew Moreira, charged with first-degree murder and robbery alongside Patrick Smith, sought severance from Mr. Smith for their joint trial.

The motion was based on the potential impact of Mr. Smith's statement to undercover officers, which they argued was exculpatory for them and necessary for their full answer and defence.

The court dismissed the application, emphasizing the legal presumption in favour of joint trials for co-accused acting in concert, the risk of inconsistent verdicts, and the truth-seeking function of a single trial.

The court found that antagonistic defences were likely to arise, and that carefully crafted jury instructions could mitigate any prejudice.

Three accused were charged jointly with first degree murder in the beating death of Zaher Nourredine and robbery of Mitchell Conery.

The Crown relied on section 229(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code for murder and section 231(5)(e) for first degree murder based on forcible confinement.

The defence conceded sufficient evidence for manslaughter and robbery but opposed committal on first degree murder.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit all three accused to trial on first degree murder and robbery, applying the Sheppard test and finding that the evidence supported inferences of the requisite mens rea for murder and that the confinement of one victim (Conery) was a separate and distinct act from the murder of the other victim (Nourredine), satisfying the requirements of constructive first degree murder under the multiple victim scenario established in R. v. Russell.

Three accused were tried for drug trafficking and proceeds of crime offences following a police investigation that resulted in three distinct seizures of cocaine and marijuana.

The court found the first accused not guilty, accepting his testimony that he was a 'blind courier' without knowledge of the drugs in the box he delivered.

The court found the second accused guilty of possessing cocaine found in a 'stash house', rejecting his cousin's exculpatory testimony and relying on circumstantial evidence of his control over the premises.

The court found the third accused guilty of possessing drugs found in his apartment, rejecting his testimony that the drugs belonged to a houseguest.

The applicants, Everald Brissett and Courtney Benjamin, brought a s. 11(b) Charter application alleging unreasonable delay in their criminal trial for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The total delay was 36 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court found five months of "defence delay" and four months of "exceptional circumstances" delay, reducing the relevant delay to 27 months, below the ceiling.

Additionally, the "transitional exceptional circumstance" from Jordan applied, as the parties reasonably relied on the pre-Jordan law.

The application was dismissed.

The accused brought a Charter motion to exclude evidence, including a loaded restricted firearm, found during a police investigation at an apartment building.

The police attended the building after receiving an anonymous tip about a gun.

The court found that the police breached the accused's section 8, 9, and 10(b) rights during his initial detention and search, and breached his section 8 rights by entering his apartment without a warrant.

However, the court held that neither accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common hallway where the firearm was discovered inside a plant cylinder.

The court also upheld the validity of a subsequent search warrant for the apartment.

As a result, the firearm and evidence found during the warranted search were ruled admissible.

The Crown sought judicial directions regarding execution of a search warrant for a seized cell phone where communications between the accused and his lawyer might be present.

Evidence indicated frequent contact between the accused’s phone and the lawyer’s phone number, raising a realistic risk that solicitor-client privileged communications could be contained on the device.

Applying the principles from Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz v. Canada (Attorney General), the court held that precautions must be taken to avoid inadvertent disclosure of privileged material to the state.

The court ordered that the phone’s contents be copied by an independent expert and first provided to defence counsel to determine whether privilege would be asserted.

If privilege were claimed, the material would remain sealed with the court pending judicial determination.

The applicant sought release on bail while charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder arising from a group attack on a public street.

Applying the reverse onus provisions and the tertiary ground framework, the court found the applicant had discharged the onus on the primary ground but failed on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court relied on strong surveillance evidence, the applicant's alleged misleading police statement, the inadequacy of the proposed supervision plan, the gravity of the offences, and the likelihood of a lengthy penitentiary sentence.

The bail application was dismissed.

Sentencing for a bank robbery committed with an imitation firearm, accompanied by a written death threat to the teller, together with two breaches of probation.

The court held that denunciation, general deterrence, and protection of the public were paramount, but also considered rehabilitation given the offender's age, difficult background, and expressed desire to address alcohol misuse.

In light of the offender's lengthy robbery record and the fact that the offences were committed while on probation, a substantial penitentiary sentence was imposed.

The court ordered a global sentence of four years and ten months, credited 1010 days for pre-sentence custody, imposed the maximum three years' probation, and granted weapons prohibition and DNA orders.

The accused was charged with robbing a bank while armed with a restricted or prohibited firearm, using an imitation firearm, threatening death, and breaching probation.

The Crown relied on video surveillance, photographs, and the recognition evidence of two police officers who had prior dealings with the accused.

The court found the identification evidence compelling and convicted the accused of the lesser included offence of using an imitation firearm, as well as threatening death and breaching probation.

In the context of ongoing inspection, receivership, and bankruptcy proceedings involving multiple corporations and a charitable foundation, counsel for the foundation sought a suspension of all proceedings pending determination of a contempt motion brought by the receiver against the foundation’s lawyer.

The moving party argued that the contempt allegation created a professional conflict of interest that would impair counsel’s ability to continue representing the client.

The receiver amended its motion to remove the requested contempt remedy against counsel, while reserving the right to bring such a motion in the future.

The court held that because the contempt relief against counsel had been removed, there was no present basis to suspend the proceedings.

Potential future contempt proceedings were insufficient to justify delaying the matters.