Frances Brennan

The accused, charged with dangerous driving causing death after his commercial truck collided with a car, brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings.

He alleged the Crown breached his section 7 rights by releasing the truck to its owner, thereby losing or destroying material evidence regarding the truck's weight and braking capacity.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the accused failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the evidence was lost or destroyed, noting the defence had multiple opportunities to inspect the vehicle and had in fact obtained an expert report.

The applicant, charged with possession of fentanyl and hydromorphone for the purpose of trafficking, brought a Charter motion to exclude evidence seized during a search of her residence and a subsequent strip search.

She argued the search warrant was based on inadequate information from a confidential informant.

The court found the warrant was validly issued based on the totality of the information, including surveillance and database checks.

The court also found reasonable and probable grounds existed for the arrest and strip search, and concluded that even if a Charter breach occurred, the evidence should not be excluded under the Grant framework.

The accused was charged with attempted murder after repeatedly striking the victim in the head with a hammer.

The accused had a history of paranoid schizophrenia and was in a state of advanced intoxication from methamphetamine use at the time of the attack, causing severe hallucinations.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the specific intent required for attempted murder beyond a reasonable doubt due to the accused's mental state.

However, the accused was found guilty of the lesser included offence of aggravated assault.

The accused was found guilty by a jury of dangerous driving, flight from police, mischief over $5,000, resisting arrest, and possession of methamphetamine following a 41km high-speed police pursuit.

The court rejected the accused's argument that the Kienapple rule should stay the flight from police conviction, finding it protects a different societal interest than dangerous driving.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for the extreme driving conduct, the court declined to impose a conditional sentence and sentenced the accused to a global term of 30 months in custody, less credit for pre-sentence custody, along with a 3-year driving prohibition.

The applicant brought a pre-trial motion challenging the validity of a search warrant issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, alleging breaches of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The applicant argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) relied upon by police, which included information from confidential informants and police surveillance, was insufficient to justify the warrant.

The court reviewed the ITO, applying the standard of whether there was reliable evidence that might reasonably be believed to authorize the warrant.

The court found that the information provided by the informants was compelling, credible, and corroborated by police surveillance.

The application was dismissed, and the evidence seized during the search was ruled admissible.

Darren Roth was charged with assault with a weapon (bottle), assault with a weapon (glass), and aggravated assault arising from a bar fight.

The second count was withdrawn by Crown counsel.

The court found the self-defence claim lacked an "air of reality" as the accused's subjective belief of threat was not reasonably held.

The court found the accused guilty of assault with a weapon (bottle) and the included offence of assault causing bodily harm, but not guilty of aggravated assault, as the complainant's injuries did not meet the threshold for wounding, maiming, disfigurement, or endangering life.

The accused brought pre-trial applications alleging breaches of their rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter, seeking the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2).

The charges stemmed from a traffic stop where police discovered methamphetamine, hydromorphone, and weapons.

The court found that the police officer used the traffic stop as a pretext to investigate suspicions of drug activity and probation breaches, without legitimate highway safety concerns.

This constituted an arbitrary detention under s. 9 of the Charter, which tainted the subsequent plain view seizure and searches incident to arrest, violating s. 8.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute due to the seriousness of the police misconduct.

The evidence was excluded.

The accused was charged with possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

He brought a pre-trial Charter application alleging breaches of his ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) rights.

The court found that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused based on confidential informant information and surveillance, so the arrest and subsequent vehicle search did not violate ss. 9 or 8.

However, the court found a s. 10(b) breach when an officer asked the accused a question after he asserted his right to counsel, and a s. 8 breach because the search warrant for the accused's cell phone lacked sufficient objective grounds.

Under s. 24(2), the court excluded the accused's statement and the cell phone data, but admitted the drugs found in the vehicle.

The accused brought a pre-trial application alleging a breach of his section 8 Charter rights and seeking the exclusion of evidence under section 24(2).

The accused challenged the facial validity of a search warrant issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient reliable evidence.

The court reviewed the ITO, which relied on information from a confidential informant corroborated by police surveillance.

The court found that the ITO contained sufficient credible and reliable evidence to permit the authorizing justice to find reasonable grounds to issue the warrant.

The application was dismissed.

The defendants brought pretrial applications alleging breaches of their rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter, seeking the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2).

The charges of possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking arose after police stopped the defendants' vehicle based on confidential informant tips, surveillance, and tracking device data.

The court found the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest all three defendants, making the arrests lawful and not arbitrary.

Consequently, the searches incident to arrest were also lawful.

Furthermore, the court upheld the validity of the search warrants issued for the cellular phones found in the vehicle, concluding the Information to Obtain (ITO) affidavits contained sufficient credible evidence.

The applications were dismissed.

The accused was charged with possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking after police found 16.4 grams of the drug in his shoe during a search incident to arrest.

The arrest followed a surveillance operation triggered by a confidential informant's tip.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging arbitrary detention and unreasonable search, which the court dismissed, finding the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest.

At trial, the accused testified the drugs were for personal use to feed a severe addiction.

The court found his testimony raised a reasonable doubt regarding the purpose of trafficking, acquitting him of that charge but finding him guilty of the lesser included offence of simple possession.

The applicant, Rueben Russell Garcia, sought a stay of proceedings under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay in bringing his criminal matter to trial.

The total delay from charge to anticipated trial end was 1,017 days (33 months and 16 days), exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court cases under R. v. Jordan.

The court attributed 149 days of delay to the defense prior to the preliminary hearing and an additional 3 months for failing to consent to committal earlier, reducing the net delay to 25 months, which is below the presumptive ceiling.

The court also found exceptional circumstances due to the complexity of the joint marijuana extraction operation and the joinder of charges with a co-accused.

As a transitional case under the Jordan framework, the applicant failed to demonstrate sustained efforts to expedite proceedings or that the delay markedly exceeded what was reasonably required.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The appellant, J.M., appealed convictions for sexual assault and assault.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge erred by reversing the burden of proof on consent, failing to consider evidence holistically before applying the R. v. W.(D.) analysis, and misapprehending evidence.

Specifically, the trial judge incorrectly placed the burden on the appellant to prove consent and failed to reconcile material inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, such as her moaning during the alleged sexual assault and her actions following the incidents.

The appeal was allowed, convictions quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The accused brought a pre-trial Charter application seeking to exclude evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant at her residence.

She alleged violations of her s. 7 and s. 8 Charter rights, claiming police used excessive force during her arrest, improperly breached her door without knocking, and subjected her to humiliating strip searches both outside her residence and at the police station.

The court dismissed the application, finding the dynamic entry was justified by safety and evidence preservation concerns, the force used during arrest was proportionate and necessary, the outdoor search was a valid pat-down incident to arrest, and the strip search at the station was justified and conducted reasonably.

The accused, Albert Peterson, was charged with five drug-related offences, including possession of cannabis marihuana, methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and simple possession of MDA and methamphetamine.

The charges arose from a search warrant executed at a residence where the accused was present and had effective control over a specific bedroom where the drugs and trafficking paraphernalia were found.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to prove possession and knowledge.

The court found the accused guilty on all five counts, concluding that the Crown had established all essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt, including the accused's possession of the substances and knowledge of their nature.

The appellant, Paul Anthony Baker, appealed his conviction for uttering a threat to cause death to the complainant and breaching a probation order.

The appeal court reviewed the trial judge's assessment of evidence, including credibility findings and the W. (D.) analysis of the accused's testimony.

The appellant argued that even if the threatening words were uttered, the necessary mens rea was absent.

The court found that the complainant's testimony, detailing her fear and intimidation in response to the accused's words, was sufficient to establish the requisite mens rea for uttering threats, consistent with the principles in R. v. O’Brien.

The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.