Jordana Goldlist

The accused was charged with second-degree murder after shooting the victim in a liquor store parking lot following a brief verbal altercation over social distancing.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter, arguing that a combination of provocation (a racial slur and a brandished knife) and marijuana intoxication negated the specific intent for murder.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as not credible, finding that he deliberately followed the victim out of the store with a drawn, illegal handgun to confront him.

The court held that the Crown disproved the defences of provocation and intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt, and found the accused guilty of second-degree murder.

The young person, charged with second-degree murder, applied for bail.

The Crown sought detention on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found a substantial likelihood that the young person would commit a serious offence if released, given his prior criminal record and history of violence while in custody.

The court rejected the proposed plan of release, finding the proposed sureties unsuitable and incapable of providing adequate supervision.

Bail was denied and the young person was ordered detained in custody pending trial.

The applicants brought a Garofoli application challenging the admissibility of firearms evidence seized during a search of their home.

The search warrant was originally obtained in relation to alleged offences committed by their son.

The applicants argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable and probable grounds and that the affiant was not full, frank, and fair.

Before the court could rule on the application, the parties reached a resolution, rendering the motion moot.

The court nonetheless cautioned police that search warrants must be based on cogent evidence, not merely suspicion or anecdotal experience.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude 25.3 grams of cocaine found in his underwear during a strip search at a police station.

The accused was initially arrested during a high-risk takedown following a 'gun call' from a citizen.

A search incident to arrest revealed marijuana and cash, leading to drug charges and the subsequent strip search.

The accused argued the police only had grounds for an investigative detention and exceeded their authority by searching his pockets.

The court dismissed the application, finding the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on the detailed citizen complaint, and alternatively, that a pocket search would have been justified during an investigative detention given the safety concerns.

The court also held that even if a Charter breach occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).