Jason Emile Bogle

The accused was charged with possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and assaulting a police officer.

Police approached the accused in a hotel lobby after receiving a tip that he possessed a large quantity of drugs.

The accused dropped a shopping bag containing approximately one pound of methamphetamine, pushed an officer, and attempted to flee before being subdued with a taser.

At trial the accused denied knowledge of the drugs and denied pushing the officer, claiming he was unknowingly carrying the bag for acquaintances.

The court rejected the accused’s evidence as inherently improbable and inconsistent, accepted the police officers’ testimony, and inferred knowledge of the drugs from the circumstances and the accused’s conduct.

In a voir dire during a criminal prosecution for importing cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking, the Crown sought a ruling that the accused’s videotaped police statement was voluntary and admissible.

The defence argued the statement was improperly induced because police referenced the accused’s family being in trouble due to the intercepted drug package.

Applying the confessions rule and the contextual approach from leading Supreme Court jurisprudence, the court considered whether police conduct amounted to a threat or promise capable of overbearing the accused’s will.

The court found no quid pro quo or inducement linking the accused’s cooperation to leniency for himself or his family.

The videotaped statement was therefore found to be voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt and admissible at trial.

The accused brought a Charter application under s. 8 seeking exclusion of evidence obtained from his cellular phone following his arrest.

Police seized the phone from a relative in the parking lot of the police detachment shortly after the accused surrendered and conducted a cursory search of text messages without a warrant.

The court held that the seizure and search were lawful as searches incidental to arrest, given the temporal and geographic proximity to the arrest and reasonable grounds to believe the phone contained evidence of the offence.

The search was limited and focused on relevant messages.

In the alternative, the court held that even if a Charter breach occurred, the evidence would be admissible under s. 24(2) following the Grant framework.

Following a jury trial dismissing claims for assault, false arrest, false imprisonment, and negligent police investigation arising from an altercation at a shopping centre, the successful defendants sought costs.

The action had involved a 14‑day trial and earlier motions with costs reserved to the trial judge.

The court considered the seriousness of the allegations, the significant damages claimed, and the time required to defend the action.

Although the police defendants argued for a higher scale of costs due to allegations of bad faith and fraud, the court treated all claims as falling within the partial indemnity scale.

Costs were awarded to both groups of defendants in the amounts requested.

Two offenders pleaded guilty to armed bank robberies committed in Windsor and four additional robberies in Toronto involving firearms, disguises, and violence against bank employees.

The parties jointly proposed a global sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.

The court held that although a higher sentence in the range of 12 to 15 years would otherwise be fit given the seriousness and multiplicity of the offences, the joint submission did not meet the high threshold required to reject it.

The court also considered the application of the Truth in Sentencing Act and the proper credit for pre‑sentence custody under s. 719 of the Criminal Code.

Credit was granted at 1:1 for the period before the guilty pleas and 1.5:1 for the period after the pleas due to sentencing delay beyond the offenders’ control.

The three accused were arrested while exiting an apartment building and entering a taxi, and each was found in possession of a loaded handgun.

They brought a Charter motion alleging violations of their rights under ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10, arguing they were unlawfully detained and searched.

The court found that the police had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative detention and pat search based on the totality of the circumstances, including the high-crime area, a recent shooting, and the accused's behaviour.

The Charter motions were dismissed, the firearms were admitted into evidence, and the accused were found guilty.

Following a successful motion by the defendant to enforce a settlement agreement dismissing the action without costs, the court determined the appropriate costs of the motion.

The court found the motion had been unnecessary because the plaintiff provided no affidavit evidence explaining or disputing the settlement offer made by counsel.

While the defendant sought higher costs, the court declined to award costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

Instead, costs were fixed on a partial indemnity scale.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant $2,700 all-inclusive.

The defendant brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement and dismiss the plaintiff’s solicitor’s negligence action without costs.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s counsel had authority to offer a settlement dismissing the action without costs and that the defendant accepted the offer, but the plaintiff later refused to execute the consent dismissal.

The court applied the principles governing settlements reached by counsel and found that the plaintiff’s lawyer had authority to bind the client and that all essential terms of the settlement had been agreed upon.

The plaintiff provided no affidavit evidence disputing the instructions given to counsel or explaining why the settlement should not be enforced.

The court concluded that a binding settlement existed and ordered the action dismissed in accordance with the settlement.