E. J. Koke

The accused brought a Garofoli application seeking to exclude evidence obtained through a Controlled Drugs and Substances Act search warrant, alleging violations of s. 8 of the Charter.

The accused argued that information supporting subsequent warrants was derived from an improper earlier search and from unreliable confidential informants.

The court found the police observations of marijuana material inside an open shed were lawfully obtained and fell within the plain view doctrine, and that the accused had only a limited expectation of privacy in the shed.

Even if the disputed information were removed from the Informations to Obtain, sufficient remaining evidence supported reasonable and probable grounds for the subsequent warrants.

The court held the warrants were valid and the seized evidence admissible.

In a criminal sexual assault prosecution involving two accused and a teenage complainant, the court addressed the appointment of an amicus curiae shortly before the scheduled trial.

One accused had dismissed her counsel one week before trial, creating the prospect that she would appear unrepresented in proceedings involving sensitive evidence from a young complainant.

The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to appoint an amicus to assist the court, including potentially conducting cross‑examination of the complainant and advising on legal issues.

The appointment was made to ensure a fair and orderly trial and to minimize harm to the complainant while preserving the integrity of the proceedings.

Once the accused retained new counsel before trial commenced, the court discharged the amicus from further involvement.

The accused brought a Garofoli application seeking to cross‑examine the affiant officer and to exclude evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant authorizing a search of his residence for offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The accused argued that the warrant was issued without reasonable grounds because the Information to Obtain relied heavily on unproven confidential informants whose reliability had not been sufficiently established.

The court held that cross‑examination of the affiant was unnecessary because it would not assist in determining whether the authorizing justice could have granted the warrant.

Applying the totality of the circumstances approach from Debot, the court found that the informant information was compelling, credible, and corroborated by police investigation including background checks and electricity consumption data.

The search warrant was therefore valid and the Charter application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The Crown brought a review application under s. 521 of the Criminal Code seeking to overturn a justice of the peace’s order granting the accused judicial interim release.

The accused faced multiple charges including procuring a person for prostitution, administering a noxious substance, human trafficking-related offences, sexual assault, and possession of stolen property.

The court found that the justice of the peace erred in assessing the secondary and tertiary grounds and misapprehended evidence relating to the complainant’s failure to seek help.

The accused had an extensive criminal record and the proposed sureties demonstrated a lack of awareness of his criminal lifestyle and were found unsuitable.

Considering the strength of the Crown’s case, the gravity of the offences, and the need to maintain confidence in the administration of justice under the tertiary ground as clarified in R. v. St‑Cloud, the court ordered the accused detained pending trial.

The accused was charged with attempting to obstruct justice by assisting in a scheme to fabricate a confession to a large marijuana grow operation discovered by police.

A witness testified that he had been promised payment to falsely confess to operating the grow operation and that the accused drove him to the property to familiarize him with the location before the confession.

The accused denied involvement and challenged the credibility of the witness.

The court assessed credibility, finding the witness’s testimony internally consistent and corroborated by phone records, photographs, and other evidence.

The court rejected the defence evidence and concluded the Crown had proven the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The plaintiff sued a contractor for damages arising from water leakage into a basement foundation constructed under her trailer.

The court found that the contractor used a slab‑on‑grade method due to a high water table but failed to follow certain standard industry practices, including properly extending the waterproofing membrane and ensuring drainage measures consistent with the Building Code.

Expert evidence established that remedial work was necessary to prevent further water infiltration and bring the structure into compliance.

Claims for rental income, personal property damage, interior demolition, and general damages were largely rejected due to insufficient proof.

The court awarded damages for foundation remediation, anchoring of the trailer, interior repainting, and a contingency allowance.

Following successful summary judgment motions by the defendants in an insurance coverage dispute, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The defendants sought substantial costs exceeding $140,000 combined.

Applying Rule 57 and the principle of proportionality, the court considered the novelty of the legal issue, the defendants’ delay in bringing the summary judgment motions, and the plaintiff’s good‑faith pursuit of a non‑frivolous claim.

The court also emphasized access to justice concerns given the modest value of the underlying claim.

Costs were significantly reduced and fixed at $30,000 payable to the insurer and $20,000 payable to the broker, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The accused brought a Charter motion under s. 24(2) seeking exclusion of evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for a suspected cannabis grow operation.

They alleged the Information to Obtain contained misleading statements and inadequate disclosure and sought leave to cross-examine the affiant officer under the Garofoli framework.

The court held that the accused had standing to bring the application as residents of the searched property and permitted limited cross‑examination concerning alleged discrepancies in the officer’s description of another officer’s observations.

After reviewing the evidence and the affidavit supporting the warrant, the court concluded that reasonable and probable grounds existed for the issuance of the warrant.

The search warrant was found to be valid and the evidence admissible.

The applicant sought review of a detention order under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after bail was denied on secondary grounds.

He argued the justice of the peace misapplied the Gladue principles and presented a new release plan involving multiple sureties and structured cultural and community activities.

The reviewing judge found the justice of the peace had sufficient evidence regarding the applicant’s Indigenous background and properly considered Gladue factors when assessing detention.

The court further concluded the proposed bail plan lacked meaningful community support and that the proposed sureties minimized or denied the applicant’s extensive violent criminal history.

The application was therefore dismissed and the detention order maintained.

The applicant sought judicial interim release pending appeal under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code after being convicted of sexual interference involving a minor family member and sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment.

The court considered whether the appeal was not frivolous, whether the applicant would surrender into custody, and whether detention was necessary in the public interest.

The applicant raised several grounds of appeal, including an arguable issue regarding whether sexual interference is an included offence under s. 153 of the Criminal Code.

The court found the third ground raised a viable issue on appeal and that the applicant had previously complied with bail conditions and posed no significant public interest risk.

Judicial interim release pending appeal was therefore granted with conditions.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while disqualified under s. 259(4) of the Criminal Code after riding an electric power‑assisted bicycle while subject to a court‑ordered driving prohibition.

The court considered whether an e‑bike constitutes a “motor vehicle” within the Criminal Code definition and whether the accused could rely on officially induced error or lack of mens rea based on police encounters, advice from a salesperson, and his own research.

The court held that an e‑bike propelled by battery power is a vehicle propelled by means other than muscular power and therefore qualifies as a motor vehicle under the Criminal Code.

The evidence did not establish that police conduct induced the accused to believe his conduct was lawful, nor that he lacked the requisite intent.

The accused was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle while disqualified.

The offender was convicted after trial of dangerous driving causing bodily harm arising from intentionally driving toward a pedestrian on a residential one‑way street and striking him, causing serious injuries that prevented the victim from returning to work.

The court considered aggravating factors including deliberate risk‑taking, serious injuries, flight from the scene, and a criminal record including prior driving offences.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s youth at the time of the offence, dated criminal record, family responsibilities, and evidence suggesting potential for rehabilitation.

The court concluded that denunciation and deterrence were primary objectives but that a penitentiary term would impede rehabilitation.

A custodial sentence of eighteen months followed by probation and ancillary orders was imposed.

Following the breakdown of a ten‑year marriage, the parties proceeded to trial regarding custody, access, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

Evidence established that the father exhibited significant paranoid ideation and suspicious behaviour affecting his parenting and relationship with the children, while refusing recommended psychological treatment.

The court accepted the Office of the Children’s Lawyer’s concerns that these behaviours negatively affected the children and blurred appropriate parent‑child boundaries.

Sole custody was granted to the mother, with reduced and conditional access for the father contingent on psychotherapy and subject to possible supervision by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The court also addressed equalization, child support obligations, and dismissed the father’s claim for spousal support.

The accused was tried on charges of assault with a weapon, uttering threats to cause death, sexual assault, sexual interference with a person under 16, and breach of probation.

The allegations arose from two incidents involving a teenage complainant and her mother, including unwanted sexual touching of the minor in a stairwell and later threats with a sharp metal object during an argument.

The defence argued the complainants were not credible due to inconsistencies, alleged motives to fabricate, and post‑offence conduct.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the complainants credible and the discrepancies minor and explainable given the age of the young complainant and passage of time.

The accused was found guilty of assault with a weapon, uttering threats, sexual assault, sexual interference, and breach of probation, with a stay entered on the sexual assault count under the Kienapple principle.

The offender was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault after attacking a teenage victim who had been forced to kneel and apologize before being struck and repeatedly kicked.

The victim suffered multiple facial fractures requiring surgery and continued to experience lasting physical and psychological harm.

At sentencing, the court considered the offender’s youth, Indigenous background, difficult family history, substance abuse issues, and lack of prior violent convictions.

While denunciation and deterrence were significant given the violent and premeditated nature of the attack, the court placed meaningful weight on rehabilitation.

The court imposed an 18‑month custodial sentence in a provincial institution followed by three years of probation, together with weapons prohibitions and a DNA order.