D. Holt

The accused brought a pretrial motion to exclude evidence of crack cocaine found on his person during a traffic stop, alleging breaches of his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights.

The police claimed they stopped the vehicle for a traffic infraction and searched the accused for safety reasons after smelling burnt marijuana.

The court rejected the officers' evidence, finding the traffic stop was a pretext and the search was highly intrusive and conducted for drugs, not safety.

The court found serious breaches of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter and excluded the evidence under s. 24(2), noting the officers' disregard for the accused's constitutionally protected rights.

The accused brought a Charter motion seeking exclusion of narcotics discovered during a search following arrest for possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered whether police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest after observing what they believed was a hand-to-hand drug transaction in a shopping plaza parking lot.

The judge found the officers’ accounts inconsistent and unreliable, concluding the arrest was based largely on suspicion rather than objectively grounded reasonable and probable grounds.

The arrest was therefore unlawful and the search incidental to arrest violated s. 8 of the Charter.

Applying the framework in R. v. Grant, the court held the seriousness of the breach and its impact on the accused’s Charter-protected interests justified exclusion of the drug evidence.

The Crown brought an application to admit similar fact evidence in a jury trial involving multiple domestic violence and sexual assault allegations.

The proposed evidence concerned prior convictions involving a former partner and included incidents of choking, threats, confinement, and sexual violence.

The court applied the analytical framework for similar fact evidence and assessed whether the probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect, focusing on whether the evidence demonstrated a distinctive pattern of conduct relevant to the actus reus and consent.

The court found that two of the four prior incidents demonstrated a distinctive pattern involving jealousy-triggered violence, choking, and sexual violence, and that their probative value outweighed the risk of prejudice.

Evidence relating to the other incidents was excluded as insufficiently distinctive and overly prejudicial.