Connie D'Angelo

Two Ottawa police constables were charged with assault causing bodily harm after taking an intoxicated man to the ground during a street response.

The Crown relied heavily on eyewitness testimony from two civilian witnesses who observed the incident from across the street.

The court found the civilian witnesses' evidence to be extremely unreliable due to credibility issues, inconsistencies, memory problems, bias, and potential collusion.

The court found that the officers lawfully used force in self-defence and in the execution of their duties under the Criminal Code when they took the intoxicated man to the ground after he made aggressive arm motions toward them.

The charges were dismissed.

A police sergeant was charged with sexual assault for conducting a strip search of a detainee in police custody.

The detainee, arrested for public intoxication, became violent and assaultive during a pat-down search, kicking and injuring a female cellblock attendant.

The sergeant subsequently cut off the detainee's shirt and bra using safety scissors while she was restrained on the floor.

The Crown alleged the strip search was retaliatory and conducted without lawful authority.

The defence argued the search was justified by exigent circumstances and conducted for valid law enforcement purposes.

The court found the search was justified under section 25 of the Criminal Code based on the constellation of exigent circumstances, including the detainee's violent and assaultive behaviour, the need to complete the search for weapons and contraband, and the practical impossibility of waiting for another female officer.

The charge was dismissed.

The United States sought the extradition of the respondent for his role in a conspiracy to import cocaine, despite the respondent never having been in the United States during the relevant times.

The extradition judge dismissed the application for committal, finding that the United States had no jurisdiction to prosecute the offence.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that an extradition judge's role is limited to determining whether the evidence would justify committal for trial under Canadian law if the crime had been committed in Canada.

The Court concluded that the jurisdiction of the requesting state is a matter for the executive, not the extradition judge, and that in any event, there was a real and substantial link to the United States.