Gurpreet Singh

The applicant, 2719149 Ontario Inc. o/a Reef Bakery, sought and obtained an interlocutory injunction after being locked out of its leased premises by the respondent landlord, 1000960018 Ontario Inc. The dispute centered on whether the lease was properly renewed and the calculation of additional rent.

The court found a strong prima facie case for the applicant, irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant.

The court ordered the applicant be permitted to regain possession of the premises and restrained the respondent from interfering with the applicant’s possession pending final determination.

James Grant brought an application under sections 7 and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a stay of criminal charges, alleging numerous Charter violations by state agents following his arrest for importing a controlled substance.

The alleged violations included unlawful detention, search, denial of counsel, excessive force during fingerprinting and strip searches, and judicial bias stemming from his "sovereign citizen" beliefs.

The court dismissed the application, finding no Charter breaches in the initial border search, fingerprinting incidents, or the courthouse flagpole incident.

It also determined that prison officials were justified in using force for a mandatory strip search in a custodial setting and that there was no reasonable apprehension of judicial bias or discrimination based on the applicant's beliefs.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings for importing cocaine, alleging a violation of his Section 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay was nearly four years, exceeding the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

The court found that at least 22 months of the delay were attributable to the applicant's obstructionist conduct, including failing to appear, refusing to cooperate with court processes, and difficulties retaining counsel.

Deducting this defence-generated delay brought the net delay below the Jordan ceiling.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm offences after police found a loaded handgun wrapped in a t-shirt in his family's garage.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including police surveillance showing the accused and an associate in the garage, and photographs of the associate with a handgun.

The accused testified that he had no knowledge of the handgun and that multiple people had access to the unlocked garage.

The court found the accused's evidence unpersuasive but concluded that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control of the firearm.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The applicants, charged with firearms offences, brought applications to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging their s. 8 rights were violated by invalid search warrants and an unauthorized cell phone search.

The court found the search warrant for one applicant's residence was valid, but the warrant for the other applicant's residence was invalid due to insufficient corroboration of a confidential informant's tip.

However, the court admitted the handgun found at the second residence under s. 24(2).

Regarding the first applicant's cell phone, the court found the police searched it without informed consent, violating his s. 8 rights, and excluded the cell phone contents under s. 24(2).