John Sitter

The accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that the right to trial within a reasonable time had been violated.

The total delay from charge to anticipated trial conclusion was 951 days (31.26 months), exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court matters.

The Crown argued that a substantial portion of the delay should be attributed to the defence due to late notice of the delay application and failure to raise the issue in a timely manner.

The court found that 448 days of delay should be attributed to the defence, resulting in net delay of 503 days (16.5 months), which fell below the presumptive ceiling.

The application was dismissed on its merits.

The court also addressed procedural violations of the Criminal Rules and Practice Direction but exercised discretion to permit the application to proceed rather than dismiss it summarily.

The defendant, Emmanuel Kwarteng, was found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking after police discovered multiple cell phones, a large quantity of currency, and various illegal drugs in his immediate vicinity while he was sleeping in an apartment.

The court considered circumstantial evidence to establish possession, including the location and significant value of the drugs, and rejected the defendant's testimony and the suggestion that the items were planted.

The judge found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had knowledge and control of the drugs, and that the only reasonable inference was possession for trafficking.

The applicant brought a Charter application under sections 8 and 9, arguing that police violated his rights against unlawful arrest and unreasonable search or seizure, seeking to exclude evidence of illegal substances found during his arrest.

The court found the initial arrest under the Trespass to Property Act was lawful, as the police acted reasonably based on the tenant's request to remove the applicant and his subsequent refusal to leave or identify himself.

The search incident to arrest for identification purposes was also deemed reasonable and lawful, ceasing once the applicant's identity was confirmed.

Consequently, the application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused brought a Charter application under s. 8 and s. 24(2) to exclude evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant at a trailer residence.

The court found the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained sufficient grounds based on informant tips to justify the search of the trailer.

However, the court ruled that the police lacked lawful authority to search a locked shed located behind the trailer, as it fell outside the curtilage of the residence described in the warrant.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that admitting the evidence from the shed would bring the administration of justice into disrepute due to the seriousness of the police conduct in failing to obtain a separate warrant.

The evidence found in the shed was excluded.

Six accused persons charged with offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and related Criminal Code firearms charges made dissimilar elections as to mode of trial.

Some accused elected trial by judge and jury, while others elected trial by provincial court judge.

Some accused subsequently re-elected without obtaining written Crown consent as required by statute.

The court addressed whether a justice presiding at a preliminary inquiry has residual jurisdiction to remedy or disregard recorded elections to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The court held that elections and re-elections as recorded must stand, and that a justice has no power to strike down or disregard a recorded election after the fact.

Two young persons pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm against a victim who suffered catastrophic injuries including traumatic brain injury with subdural hematoma, permanent vision loss, and severe psychological trauma.

The primary assailant inflicted repeated vicious kicks and blows to the victim's head and skull while the co-accused actively participated with strikes and taunts.

The assault was videotaped.

The court found both offences constituted violent offences under section 39(1)(a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and imposed custodial sentences with probation, finding that non-custodial alternatives were insufficient given the severity of the offence, the victims' catastrophic injuries, and the offenders' poor compliance history with previous non-custodial orders.