2 total
The Charter does not apply to private security guards contracted by a public corporation.
The accused was charged with assaulting a security guard with intent to resist arrest and possessing hydromorphone, morphine, and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.
Security guards employed by a private contractor observed the accused and a companion acting suspiciously in a Toronto Parking Authority parking lot and conducted an investigation.
The accused claimed the security guards planted the drugs and breached his Charter rights.
The court found that the Charter does not apply to private security guards, even when employed by a public entity.
The court rejected the accused's credibility regarding both the drug possession and the assault, finding him guilty on all counts.
Circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove employee participated in diversion theft.
The accused, a loss prevention officer at a retail warehouse store, was charged with two counts of theft over $5,000 under s. 334 of the Criminal Code following a coordinated diversion theft captured on store security footage.
The Crown alleged the accused orchestrated the diversion by sending other employees away from the store entrance to allow accomplices to remove merchandise.
The evidence against the accused was entirely circumstantial and relied heavily on video recordings and witness testimony describing the accused directing staff away from the entrance moments before merchandise exited.
The court found the Crown proved that a theft exceeding $5,000 occurred but held that the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused participated in the theft.
Suspicion alone was insufficient to meet the criminal standard of proof.
