3 total
Evidence excluded after unlawful vehicle search based solely on marijuana smell violated multiple Charter rights.
The accused were stopped for a traffic violation.
An officer smelled marijuana and observed an empty cannabis packet, prompting a vehicle search under the Cannabis Control Act that yielded a loaded handgun and drugs.
The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of their rights under sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).
The court found that the officer lacked reasonable grounds for the search, rendering the search and subsequent detentions unlawful.
The court also found violations of the accused's rights to be informed of the reasons for their detention and to retain counsel without delay.
Given the severity and multiplicity of the breaches, the court excluded the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.
Accused found NCR for arson ordered detained at hospital with community living privileges.
The accused was found not criminally responsible for arson and mischief.
At the initial Ontario Review Board hearing, the Board found that the accused poses a significant threat to public safety due to his schizophrenia, cannabis use disorder, and history of medication non-compliance.
The Board ordered a Detention Order at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with privileges up to living in the community, rejecting the accused's request for a Conditional Discharge.
The accused was convicted of break and enter and assault based on cumulative circumstantial video evidence.
The defendant, Jermaine Haughton, was charged with break and enter, assault with a weapon, failing to comply with a release order, and theft under, following an incident where a masked assailant entered Joseph Prempeh's apartment and assaulted him.
The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, primarily video surveillance, to identify Haughton as the assailant.
Haughton admitted to the theft and the breach of the release order but denied being the assailant, claiming it was his friend Oshane.
The court found Haughton's testimony incredible due to inconsistencies and rejected his narrative.
Based on the cumulative circumstantial evidence, including matching clothing, physical attributes, timing, and post-offence conduct, the court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Haughton was the assailant and found him guilty on all charges.