D. Lumba

The Crown brought an application to remove the defendant's counsel of record due to a conflict of interest.

The defendant and a co-accused were jointly charged with terrorism-related offences.

The counsel of record had previously represented or consulted with the co-accused, the defendant's family members, and potential witnesses in related matters.

The court found a realistic and significant risk of a future conflict of interest that could impair the counsel's duty of loyalty and effective assistance.

The application was granted, and the counsel was removed from the record.

The applicant was arrested for drug trafficking, and a subsequent search of his residence yielded a firearm.

He brought a Charter application to exclude evidence, alleging breaches of his s. 10(a) and 10(b) rights due to a delay in facilitating contact with counsel and a failure to inform him of the firearms charges.

The court found that the police breached both s. 10(a) and s. 10(b) of the Charter.

However, applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the evidence should not be excluded, as the breaches had a minimal impact on the applicant's Charter-protected interests and society's interest in adjudicating the serious charges on their merits strongly favoured inclusion.

The applicants were stopped for a traffic violation and subsequently investigated for a stolen vehicle.

The police arrested the driver for driving under suspension, detained the passenger, and searched the vehicle based on the smell of burnt marijuana and the presence of two roaches, locating a loaded handgun and drugs.

The court found multiple Charter breaches, including arbitrary detention, unreasonable search, and delay in providing rights to counsel, as the officers lacked reasonable grounds for the stolen vehicle investigation and the vehicle search.

The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.