Erec Rolfe

The defendant applied under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence seized from his car and home pursuant to search warrants.

The defendant argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained misrepresentations and omitted material facts, specifically a failed undercover drug buy.

The court found the affiant's misrepresentation of surveillance events was egregious and not in good faith.

After excising the inaccurate information and amplifying the ITO with the omitted facts, the court concluded there were insufficient grounds to issue the warrants, resulting in a s. 8 Charter breach.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence due to the seriousness of the police conduct and the significant impact on the defendant's privacy interests.

The offender was convicted of aggravated assault and breach of probation after severely injuring a man visiting the mother of the offender's child.

The Crown sought 8 to 10 years, while the defence sought 4 to 6 years.

The court imposed a sentence of 6.5 years for the aggravated assault.

The court also awarded 3 years and 2 months of pre-sentence custody credit, which included 14 months of enhanced credit under the Duncan framework due to the harsh conditions of the 426 days the offender spent in segregation.

The applicant pleaded guilty to robbery and firearm offences and awaited sentencing.

He brought a constitutional challenge against the bail misconduct exclusion in s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code, which restricts pre-sentence custody credit to a 1:1 ratio for offenders whose bail was cancelled due to misconduct.

The applicant argued the provision violated s. 7 of the Charter.

The court found that the provision engages the liberty interest and is overbroad, as it captures individuals whose misconduct does not render them a threat to public safety.

The Crown conceded the infringement could not be saved under s. 1.

The court declared the bail misconduct prong of s. 719(3.1) of no force and effect.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and the resulting 18-month sentence.

The Crown's case at trial relied entirely on circumstantial forensic evidence, including the presence of the appellant's DNA on the complainant's underwear.

The appeal court found the trial judge's verdict was unreasonable, as he drew impermissible inferences not supported by the evidence and failed to provide sufficient reasons explaining his credibility findings and rejection of the appellant's exculpatory statement.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.