D. Leitch

Reyan Chaudhry pleaded guilty to 17 charges across four GTA jurisdictions, including residential break and enters, multiple motor vehicle thefts, flight from police, and impaired driving, all driven by a severe opioid addiction.

The Crown and defence presented a joint submission for a global sentence of 5.5 years.

The primary contested issue was the quantification of mitigation for harsh presentence custody conditions (Marshall or Duncan mitigation).

The court accepted the joint submission for the global sentence and, after considering the severe lockdown and triple-bunking conditions, awarded an additional six months of mitigation for presentence custody.

The court also imposed a seven-year driving prohibition.

The applicant, Phi Ho, challenged the lawfulness of searches conducted at a StorageMart locker, a residential address (Moody Drive), and a Mercedes vehicle, as well as the issuance of five production warrants and three tracking warrants.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence obtained from these searches, arguing that the Informations to Obtain (ITOs) contained flaws, including insufficient detail in redacted portions and inaccuracies or carelessness by the affiant.

The court reviewed the unredacted ITOs and the judicial summary, finding that the applicant was sufficiently informed to challenge the material.

The court addressed specific alleged errors, such as mischaracterizations of ownership and discrepancies in GPS data, ordering some excisions and amplifications to the ITOs.

Ultimately, the court found that even with the amended record, there were reasonable grounds to support the issuance of all judicial authorizations.

The court also considered whether the affiant's conduct amounted to "blatant dishonesty" subverting the judicial process, concluding that while some errors were concerning, they did not rise to that level, nor did they undermine the integrity of the pre-authorization process.

The application to exclude evidence and invalidate the warrants was dismissed.

The accused, Bryan Babic, was charged with robbery and having his face masked with intent to commit an indictable offence.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the perpetrator.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's vehicle being used in the robbery, his resemblance to the driver in surveillance footage, and items found in his vehicle.

The court found that while there was some compelling evidence, the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt due to weaknesses in the evidence and the absence of other corroborating factors like forensic evidence or recognition evidence.

The accused was found not guilty on both counts.

The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit.

He argued that the police violated his right to counsel of choice under s. 10(b) of the Charter by failing to wait a reasonable amount of time for his preferred lawyer to call back and by improperly influencing him to speak with duty counsel instead.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court agreed, finding that the police failed to take reasonable steps to contact his counsel of choice and interfered with his right by suggesting he speak with duty counsel.

The court excluded the breath test results under s. 24(2) of the Charter, noting a systemic problem with police failing to respect the right to counsel of choice, and dismissed the charge.