G. Holder

The accused was arrested for possession of a loaded restricted firearm following a high-risk takedown where he was tasered by police.

The arrest was based on a confidential informant's tip and police surveillance.

The accused brought multiple Charter applications alleging arbitrary arrest, excessive force, unlawful search, and breaches of his rights to be informed of the reasons for arrest and to counsel.

The court found that the arrest was lawful and the force used was reasonable, but concluded that the police breached the accused's s. 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights by delaying the communication of the reasons for arrest and the right to counsel, and by questioning him before he could consult a lawyer.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the firearm under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the breaches did not cause the seizure and the evidence was essential to the prosecution.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with robbery following a home invasion where three individuals stole electronics and a wallet.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, specifically a single partial fingerprint found on a solarium door frame that matched the accused.

None of the victims or co-accused could identify the accused.

Applying the principles of circumstantial evidence, the court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused left the fingerprint during the robbery, as there were other plausible explanations for its presence.

The accused was found not guilty.

The accused was charged with sexual assault after the complainant awoke to find him naked and on top of her following an evening of heavy drinking and marijuana use.

The defence argued the complainant's evidence was unreliable due to her intoxication and inconsistencies in her testimony.

The court found the complainant credible despite memory fragmentation, noting her core account of the assault remained consistent.

The accused was found guilty.

Four accused were jointly charged with offences relating to a loaded firearm discovered in a vehicle in which they were occupants.

Two accused faced additional counts of transporting, possessing, and controlling the firearm and related ammunition offences.

After the Crown closed its case, all accused sought directed verdicts of acquittal on the basis that the Crown had failed to establish a prima facie case of knowledge or control of the firearm.

The court held that mere presence in a vehicle containing a firearm, coupled with nervous behaviour and seat movements, was insufficient to establish knowledge or control beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly where another unidentified occupant fled the vehicle from the seat where the firearm was located.

Concluding that the circumstantial evidence could not permit a properly instructed jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the court granted directed verdicts and acquitted all accused.