Dayna Michelle Gulka

The accused was charged with possession of cannabis resin, possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl and cocaine, possession of property obtained by offence, prowl by night near a dwelling house, and failing to comply with a recognizance.

Police conducted surveillance on a residence and stopped the accused as he left on a bicycle, claiming he was riding without a light and on the sidewalk in violation of the Highway Traffic Act and a municipal by-law.

The accused fled and was apprehended after an extensive police pursuit.

The court found that the stop was pretextual and unlawful, violating sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The court also found minor violations of section 10 rights.

All evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, and all charges were dismissed.

The Crown sought to establish a peace bond under section 810 of the Criminal Code against the defendant following a separation dispute.

The complainant alleged threats and concerning behaviour during property division proceedings.

The defence brought a motion for non-suit or directed verdict at the close of the Crown's case, arguing insufficient evidence of reasonable grounds for fear.

The court found that while the complainant harboured fear at the time the information was sworn, the evidence did not establish reasonable grounds for such fear at the time of hearing, approximately ten months later.

The court granted the defence motion, finding that the passage of time, absence of contact between parties, and lack of acrimony in subsequent interactions undermined the reasonableness of the fear.

The accused was charged with arson and break, enter and commit arson in connection with a barn fire deliberately set on April 11, 2014.

The co-perpetrator, Tim Norris, pled guilty and testified that he and the accused jointly set the fire.

The accused denied involvement and provided multiple inconsistent versions of events.

The court found the accused's testimony unreliable due to constant shifting accounts and accepted the testimony of the co-perpetrator.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly participated in the arson.

Conviction was entered on the break, enter and commit arson charge, with the standalone arson charge stayed at the Crown's request.