4 total
Evidence of two kilograms of cocaine was excluded under section 24(2) due to unlawful arrest, unreasonable strip search, and delayed access to counsel.
A voir dire concerning the lawfulness of an arrest and subsequent searches.
The accused was arrested on the 401 highway based on information from a Toronto drug investigation targeting a different individual.
The Crown sought to uphold a warrantless strip search and vehicle search as incidental to arrest.
The court found that police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused, rendering the searches unlawful.
The court also found that the deliberate denial of the accused's right to counsel for 9.5 hours constituted a Charter breach.
Evidence was excluded under section 24(2).
Crown wardship denied; children returned to parents under strict supervision order despite ongoing addiction issues.
The applicant Society sought an order of Crown wardship with no access for two children.
The respondent parents conceded the children were in need of protection due to their ongoing struggles with drug addiction but requested the children be returned to their care under a supervision order.
The court found that the initial apprehension of the children was not justified by the evidence and that the Society had unreasonably restricted the parents' access and failed to support their rehabilitation.
Despite the parents' ongoing addiction issues, the court found they had a stable, supportive relationship, strong extended family support, and a deep bond with the children.
The court concluded it was in the children's best interests to be returned to their parents' care pursuant to a reintegration plan and a strict supervision order requiring drug testing and treatment.
The court dismissed a Crown wardship application and ordered children returned to their parents under a supervision order despite ongoing parental drug addictions.
The Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship with no access for two children based on parental drug use and alleged protection concerns.
The court found that while both parents struggle with long-standing drug addictions, the Society's apprehension of the children was not justified on the evidence presented.
The court determined that the children should be returned to parental care pursuant to a supervision order with a reintegration plan, finding that the parents' drug addictions, while a legitimate concern, did not preclude their ability to parent with appropriate support and monitoring.
The court was critical of the Society's restrictive approach to access and lack of support for the parents' rehabilitation efforts.
Dissenting opinion argues single-store bargaining unit is appropriate for fast-food franchise despite integrated production.
In a dissenting opinion regarding an application for certification, Board Member Seville disagreed with the majority's finding that a single-store bargaining unit was inappropriate.
The majority had concluded that the employer's 11 fast-food franchise locations were functionally integrated, particularly regarding the production of baked goods, and that a single-store unit would cause serious labour relations problems.
The dissent argued that the Board lacked sufficient evidence regarding the separate corporate structures of each store and the parent franchisor to properly assess functional integration.
The dissent further contended that the production relationship did not preclude a single-store unit and that requiring an 11-store bargaining unit created an unreasonable impediment to the employees' right to organize.
