David Tice

The accused, charged with first-degree murder for allegedly shooting an innocent bystander during a drive-by shooting, applied for bail.

The court found the Crown's case to be extremely strong and noted the accused's extensive criminal record, including numerous bail breaches and violent offences.

The court dismissed the application, concluding the accused failed to meet his onus on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, as he posed a significant risk to public safety and his release would undermine confidence in the administration of justice.

The accused was arrested for armed robbery and immediately requested to speak to his lawyer.

The police failed to facilitate his right to counsel for over three hours, despite having easy access to the lawyer's contact information.

During a search of the accused's vehicle incident to arrest, police located a firearm.

The accused brought an application to exclude the firearm under s. 24(2) of the Charter, arguing his s. 10(b) rights were violated.

The court found a serious breach of the right to counsel due to police negligence and excluded the firearm, concluding its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, uttering threats, and breach of probation following a violent attack on his sisters-in-law and niece.

After pleading guilty to aggravated assault and breach of probation, the trial proceeded on the remaining charges.

The accused argued that his severe intoxication negated the specific intent required for attempted murder.

The court found that despite a high blood alcohol concentration, the accused had an operating mind, foresaw the consequences of his actions, and possessed the specific intent to cause death.

The accused was found guilty of attempted murder and uttering threats.

The accused was charged with robbery with a firearm and other offences after police tracked a GPS device from stolen cell phones to a plaza.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging arbitrary arrest, unreasonable search of his satchel and vehicle, and denial of his right to counsel.

The court dismissed the application, finding the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, the searches were validly conducted incident to arrest, and the accused was properly advised of his right to counsel.

The court also noted that even if Charter breaches had occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

Following a guilty verdict for first-degree murder, the applicants sought a factual inquiry and a mistrial after discovering that a juror had cycled past the murder scene and posted about it on a fitness app during deliberations.

The court declined to conduct the inquiry, finding that the evidence was sufficiently preserved for an appeal and that questioning the juror about the impact of the visit would violate the secrecy of jury deliberations.

The court also dismissed the mistrial application, concluding that the physical layout of the scene was not central to the main issue of identity, was already well-documented in evidence, and did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

During a trial for first degree murder, the applicant sought to preclude the Crown from asking the principal witness to identify him in the dock.

The applicant argued the identification had trifling probative value and was dangerously prejudicial because the witness was intoxicated and the prior photo identification was flawed.

The court dismissed the application, holding that in-dock identifications are presumptively admissible and that any frailties in the evidence are matters of weight for the jury to assess following cross-examination and proper jury instructions.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, brought pre-trial applications alleging abuse of process and seeking to adduce hearsay and alternate suspect evidence.

They argued the Crown preferred a direct indictment for an oblique purpose to shield a key witness from discovery, and sought disclosure of the materials provided to the Attorney General.

The court dismissed the abuse of process application, finding no evidence of bad faith or improper motive to displace the presumption that prosecutorial discretion was exercised properly.

The court also dismissed the hearsay application and provisionally dismissed the alternate suspect application, finding the proposed evidence lacked a sufficient connection to the crime and its prejudicial effect vastly outweighed any probative value.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of aggravated assault after stabbing the victim twice in the back with a large knife in an unprovoked attack.

He was also found guilty of two counts of failing to comply with a probation order.

The court considered the offender's serious criminal record, his difficult upbringing, and his Aboriginal background under Gladue principles.

The court sentenced the offender to 5 years' imprisonment for the aggravated assault and 9 months concurrent for the probation breaches, less credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a net sentence of 1 year and 102 days.

The accused was tried for attempted murder and aggravated assault following a stabbing in an apartment building.

During the trial, the accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing that his section 7 Charter rights were violated because the police failed to seize and preserve video surveillance footage from the building's lobby.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the police were not unacceptably negligent as they had no reason to believe the lobby video was relevant until months later.

Furthermore, the defence knew of the video's existence from the outset but took no steps to obtain it, and the video would not have captured the actual altercation.

The accused applied for a bail review after being denied release on secondary and tertiary grounds following his arrest for firearms, assault, and theft charges.

The accused proposed his mother and uncle as sureties.

The reviewing judge found the proposed plan of supervision was weak, given the sureties' lack of knowledge about the accused's activities, substance abuse issues, and the seriousness of the charges.

The court concluded that detention remained justified on both secondary and tertiary grounds, and dismissed the application.

The accused was charged with firearm and drug offences after police stopped him on his bicycle and searched a bag he had handed to a bystander.

The police claimed they searched the bag and the accused because they smelled fresh marijuana.

The court found the officers' evidence regarding the smell of marijuana to be fabricated and untruthful.

Concluding that the warrantless searches violated the accused's s. 8 Charter rights, the court excluded the seized handgun and marijuana under s. 24(2) due to the egregious and bad faith conduct of the police.

The three accused were charged with 32 armed robberies of gas stations and convenience stores.

Following their arrest after a foot pursuit, they were held for several hours before giving videotaped confessions.

The accused sought a stay of proceedings alleging police brutality, and challenged the admissibility of their statements and physical evidence seized.

The court dismissed the stay application, finding no evidence of police brutality, and upheld the lawfulness of the arrests and search warrants.

However, the court ruled the statements inadmissible because the Crown failed to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt, largely due to the police's failure to video-record the critical 'pre-interviews' where the accused allegedly waived their right to counsel and agreed to confess.