J. Chapman

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

Following a lawful R.I.D.E. stop, the officer detected the odor of alcohol on the accused's breath and administered a roadside screening device, which produced a "fail" result.

The accused was arrested and transported to a police detachment where breath samples were obtained.

The defence challenged the legality of the stop, the placement of the accused in the police vehicle for the screening device test, and alleged violations of the right to counsel.

The court found no Charter violations and convicted the accused.

The applicant, Daniel Leo Michael Dupuis, sought to exclude evidence seized from his residence following a warrantless police search.

Police responded to a 911 call reporting a home invasion, assault, and robbery.

Approximately 90 minutes after arrival, officers conducted a "clearing search" of the second floor, where they observed a large quantity of marihuana in plain view.

The court found that this warrantless search violated Dupuis's section 8 Charter rights, as there was no objective basis to believe an imminent threat to life or safety existed at the time of the search.

The officers' conduct was deemed negligent in failing to adhere to well-established principles governing searches of private dwellings.

Consequently, the evidence obtained from this initial search, and from a subsequent search warrant that relied on the unlawfully obtained information, was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The applicants, Brandon Dean Brooks and Bryan Frederick Styles, sought a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay in bringing their drug-related charges to trial.

The total delay from charge to anticipated trial completion was approximately 36 months.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Jordan, deducting periods attributable to a discrete event (judge's illness) and defence delay (one applicant's failure to appear).

After deductions, the net delay was 28 months, which did not exceed the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court matters.

The court also found no proven prejudice under the R. v. Morin principles.

Consequently, the application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed for both applicants.

The applicant sought an order to exclude evidence seized under a search warrant, alleging a breach of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicant argued that the information to obtain the search warrant lacked reasonable grounds, specifically regarding the presence of drugs at the residence and an inadequate temporal nexus between the alleged offences and the warrant's issuance.

The court reviewed the information to obtain based on the principles set out in R. v. Garofoli and found that it contained sufficient and credible information to establish reasonable grounds for the search warrant.

The court also determined that there was a sufficient connection in time given the ongoing nature of the investigation.

As no Charter breach was found under section 8, the court did not need to consider the exclusion of evidence under section 24(2).

The application was dismissed.

The accused, charged with drug trafficking and facing a potential four-year penitentiary sentence, applied for a Rowbotham order for state-funded counsel after being denied Legal Aid due to his WSIB pension slightly exceeding the financial cut-off.

The court found that the accused lacked the means to retain counsel and that the complexity of the case, combined with the serious potential consequences, required representation to ensure a fair trial.

The application was granted, and a conditional stay of proceedings was ordered until state funding for counsel is arranged.

Several First Nations accused sought disclosure of 2013 jury rolls in advance of a planned constitutional application alleging underrepresentation of Indigenous jurors in jury pools.

They argued the records were relevant to a forthcoming application under ss. 7, 11(d), and 11(e) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to a potential s. 11(b) delay claim arising from the litigation of that issue.

The court held that the requested materials were governed by the third‑party disclosure framework from R. v. O'Connor because the records were held by a separate government entity rather than the prosecuting Crown.

Applying the likely relevance threshold, the court concluded the jury rolls could assist in determining whether delays associated with the application should be characterized as institutional delay or delay attributable to the accused.

Disclosure was therefore ordered subject to privacy undertakings.

The accused brought a motion seeking a stay of proceedings based on alleged breaches of ss. 7 and 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms arising from pre‑charge and post‑charge delay.

The charges included manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death, and trafficking in a controlled substance following a fatal methadone overdose.

Applying the framework from Morin and related jurisprudence, the court assessed the delay and attributed the majority to inherent and defence causes, finding institutional delay of approximately 5.6 months, within acceptable limits for the Superior Court of Justice.

The court concluded the accused failed to establish sufficient prejudice from the delay to justify a stay of proceedings.

The accused also sought to exclude a statement recorded in a physician’s patient note; the court held the statement was admissible as its probative value was not outweighed by prejudice.

The Ontario College of Pharmacists brought an application for declaratory and injunctive relief against the respondents, who operated an internet pharmacy business selling prescription drugs to consumers outside Canada.

The respondents argued that their corporate restructuring, which involved an Ontario call centre processing orders for a Belize corporation, removed them from the College's jurisdiction.

The court found a sufficient connection to Ontario to engage the College's jurisdiction and determined that the sale of drugs was taking place in Ontario.

The court held that the respondents were operating a pharmacy without accreditation, selling drugs without pharmacists, and improperly using pharmacy designations, in breach of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act and related legislation.

A permanent injunction was granted.