J. Cruess

The applicant brought a motion to exclude evidence of a submachine gun, ammunition, and utterances obtained during a warrantless search of his home.

The police attended the applicant's home to investigate a gun allegation made by his intoxicated girlfriend.

The officers searched the home without a warrant and without advising the applicant of his right to refuse the search or his right to counsel upon detention.

The court found that the applicant was psychologically detained and did not give informed consent to the search, resulting in breaches of his s. 8 and s. 10(b) Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the officers' conduct was serious and the impact on the applicant's rights was significant, warranting the exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Crown applied for certiorari to quash a preliminary inquiry judge's decision discharging the accused of first-degree murder and committing him only on second-degree murder.

The Crown argued the judge committed jurisdictional error by ignoring inferences favourable to the Crown and failing to consider the whole of the evidence regarding planning and deliberation.

The Superior Court agreed, finding the preliminary inquiry judge erred by drawing an inference favourable to the accused regarding the interaction with the victim, and by failing to consider circumstantial evidence of planning, such as the accused's change of clothing and pre-arranged taxi escape.

The application was granted, the discharge quashed, and mandamus issued directing committal on first-degree murder.

Following a jury verdict finding the applicant guilty of manslaughter, the applicant brought a motion seeking the trial judge's recusal from the sentencing hearing, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant cited several incidents, including the judge's post-verdict comments to the deceased's family, accepting doughnuts brought by the family, and various procedural rulings and expressions of frustration.

The court dismissed the application, finding that a fully informed reasonable person would not apprehend bias from any of the isolated incidents or their cumulative effect, noting that the presumption of judicial impartiality had not been displaced.