Joseph J. Markson

The Crown appealed the acquittal of a Belleville police officer charged with assault causing bodily harm arising from an arrest.

The officer and a co-accused were charged following an incident at a fast-food restaurant where they arrested a man for alleged theft of an energy drink.

The trial judge found the co-accused guilty of common assault but acquitted the respondent officer.

The Crown argued the acquittal was incongruous and that the officer should have been found guilty because he shared the co-accused's erroneous belief about reasonable grounds for arrest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly applied the law and made factual findings that supported the acquittal, particularly that the respondent did not know what was happening inside the restaurant until he saw the struggle through the window.

This case involves a police officer, Kevin Arnem, charged with assault causing bodily harm and using a weapon (his K-9 dog, Nitro) in committing the assault, contrary to section 267(b) and 267(a) of the Criminal Code, respectively.

The incident occurred during the arrest of Ramanpreet Singh, who was found in a stolen vehicle.

The central issue was whether the deployment of the K-9 dog was a reasonable use of force under section 25(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court found Mr. Singh's testimony unreliable but relied on video evidence and other police officers' accounts.

Applying a modified objective test, the court concluded that Officer Arnem acted on reasonable grounds and used necessary force given the high-risk nature of the arrest, the suspect's non-compliance, and the limited time to react.

Officer Arnem was found not guilty on both counts.

Jake Grant, a Niagara Regional Police Service sergeant, pleaded guilty to threatening Bruce Love, a mentally ill individual, in a Subway restaurant.

The incident occurred in 2017, and the case had a protracted procedural history, including an overturned stay of proceedings.

The Crown sought a conviction and fine, while the defence requested an absolute discharge, citing Mr. Grant's exemplary service record and collateral consequences related to travel.

The court found Mr. Grant's conduct inexcusable, particularly given his position and the victim's vulnerability.

The judge rejected an absolute discharge as contrary to public interest and found the collateral consequences argument speculative.

A conditional discharge with two years probation and 120 hours of community service focused on services for mentally challenged individuals was imposed, balancing denunciation and deterrence with Mr. Grant's otherwise exceptional character.

This endorsement addresses two applications for leave to intervene in a criminal appeal from conviction, brought by the Canadian Police Association, Toronto Police Association, and Police Association of Ontario.

The underlying appeal concerns a police officer convicted of criminal negligence causing death and failing to provide necessaries of life to an intoxicated individual.

The court granted intervener status, finding that the associations had a substantial interest and could offer useful perspectives on legal issues such as the standard of care for police officers, the relevance of mistake of fact in objective liability offences, and the need for expert evidence on professional standards, provided they confined their submissions to legal arguments and avoided the merits of the appeal.

A police sergeant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm after a trial.

The Crown sought a 60-day conditional sentence, while the defence sought an absolute or conditional discharge with probation and community service.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with 18 months probation, 200 hours of community service, a $1,000 victim surcharge, and DNA databank inclusion.

The court balanced the seriousness of police misconduct and the need for denunciation and deterrence against the officer's exemplary 19-year career, unblemished record, and the out-of-character nature of the incident.

A police sergeant was charged with assault causing bodily harm after using force to arrest a highly intoxicated individual with a lengthy criminal history and known propensity for violence.

The sergeant employed a "grounding" technique that resulted in the arrestee's face striking the ground, causing a laceration to the cheek.

The court found that while the sergeant had reasonable grounds to arrest and was entitled to use necessary force, the force employed was unnecessary, disproportionate, and unlawful.

The arrestee had become compliant before the sergeant applied force, and the sergeant's stated justifications for the use of force were contradicted by video evidence.

The court convicted the sergeant of assault causing bodily harm, finding that the injury met the statutory threshold for bodily harm.

The defendants brought a Charter application under section 11(b) alleging that their right to a trial within a reasonable time had been breached.

The delay from arrest to the anticipated end of trial was approximately 20.5 months.

The Crown acknowledged the delay was presumptively unreasonable and sought to justify it based on case complexity and transitional exceptional circumstances.

The court found neither complexity nor transitional circumstances applied.

The case involved straightforward factual issues regarding consent and age verification, with only three principal Crown witnesses and a five-day trial schedule.

The court granted the application and stayed all charges against the defendants.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting a complainant in his home after they met at a bar and shared a taxi.

The complainant testified that she was pinned down and forcibly penetrated while repeatedly telling the accused to stop.

The accused testified that all sexual contact was consensual.

The trial judge found the accused's testimony to be deliberately misleading on material points regarding his interest in the complainant and the circumstances of leaving the bar.

However, the judge also found the complainant's testimony to be unreliable due to significant memory loss inconsistent with her alcohol consumption and numerous prior statements to others describing consensual sexual activity that turned rough.

The judge concluded that while the accused's guilt was possible or even probable, a reasonable doubt existed regarding whether the complainant withdrew consent, and therefore acquitted the accused.

A Kingston Police officer was charged with dangerous driving arising from an incident on March 18, 2012, when his police cruiser struck a suspect on the sidewalk during a foot chase.

The Crown alleged the officer deliberately drove his vehicle onto the sidewalk to obstruct the suspect's path.

The defence contended the collision occurred on the roadway and was unavoidable.

The court found, based on the evidence of the suspect and five independent eyewitnesses, that the collision occurred on the sidewalk.

The court further found that the officer deliberately steered his vehicle onto the sidewalk to apprehend the suspect, knowing there was heavy pedestrian traffic in the area.

The officer was found guilty of dangerous driving.