45 total
Seven‑hour interrogation undermining counsel advice rendered accused’s statement involuntary and inadmissible.
In a homicide prosecution arising from a stabbing at a banquet hall, the Crown sought to admit a seven‑hour videotaped police interview of one accused.
During the interview the accused repeatedly asserted the right to silence and relied on prior legal advice not to speak.
The court found that the interviewing officer repeatedly urged the accused to speak, suggested that cooperation could improve his status from suspect to witness, implied a legal obligation to assist police, and undermined the accused’s confidence in his lawyer.
Considering the totality of circumstances, the court held that the accused’s ability to make a meaningful choice whether to speak was impaired and the statement was not proven voluntary.
The statement was therefore inadmissible under the confessions rule and would in any event be excluded under s. 24(2) for breaches of ss. 7 and 10(b) of the Charter.
Police misconduct justified one‑year sentence reduction for armed robbery offender.
The offender was convicted by a jury of armed robbery and forcible confinement arising from a planned robbery of a workplace where he was employed and held a position of trust.
During the offence the victim supervisor was threatened with a firearm, blindfolded, and restrained while copper pipe valued at over $344,000 was stolen.
The court determined that a fit global sentence was six and one-half years’ imprisonment, considering aggravating factors including the breach of trust, planning, and the psychological harm to the victim, balanced against the offender’s lack of prior criminal record and prospects for rehabilitation.
Evidence established that police assaulted the offender during post-arrest interrogation; although the misconduct did not affect trial fairness, the court reduced the sentence by one year to reflect the abuse of state authority.
Credit was granted for pre‑sentence custody and limited credit for strict bail conditions, and ancillary orders including a lifetime firearms prohibition and DNA order were imposed.
Long-term offender designation and substantial concurrent penitentiary terms were imposed.
Following jury convictions for manslaughter, robbery, unlawful confinement, and use of an imitation firearm arising from a fatal robbery, the court determined a dangerous offender application under the pre-July 2, 2008 regime.
The court found the statutory prerequisites for both dangerous offender and long-term offender status were met but exercised discretion to designate the offender a long-term offender.
Emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, separation, and proportionality in light of extreme aggravating factors and no mitigating factors, the court imposed concurrent custodial terms resulting in a ten-year net sentence after enhanced pre-sentence custody credit, plus a ten-year long-term supervision order.
Police assault breached Charter but did not justify stay of conviction.
The applicant sought a stay of his convictions for armed robbery with a firearm and forcible confinement, arguing that police assaulted him during post‑arrest questioning in violation of ss. 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Crown conceded that excessive force had been used by police officers during the interviews.
The court accepted that the assaults occurred but found the injuries were not serious, did not produce lasting harm, and had no impact on the fairness of the trial or the reliability of the verdict.
Applying the principles governing abuse of process and stays of proceedings, the court held that the stringent threshold for a stay was not met.
The appropriate remedy was instead a reduction in the sentence otherwise fit.
Directed verdict of acquittal granted as there was no evidence of constructive possession of cocaine.
The accused, Mechelle Rogers, was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police found 1.5 kg of cocaine in the trunk of a vehicle in which she was a passenger.
At the close of the Crown's case, she brought a motion for a directed verdict.
The court applied the test for a directed verdict based on circumstantial evidence and the law of constructive possession.
The court found that while there was evidence she knew illegal activity was taking place, there was no evidence she knew the substance was cocaine or had any control over it.
The motion was granted and a directed verdict of acquittal was entered.