Joshua Cramer

The applicant was a passenger in a vehicle that fled the scene of a collision.

Police located the vehicle and shortly after stopped the applicant and the driver walking nearby.

An officer arrested the applicant for dangerous driving and subsequently searched him, finding cocaine.

The applicant brought a Charter motion to exclude the evidence.

The court found that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the applicant, rendering the search unlawful and violating his s. 8 and s. 9 Charter rights.

The court also found a breach of s. 10(b) due to a delay in advising the applicant of his right to counsel.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded the Charter breaches were serious and excluded the evidence under s. 24(2).

The accused was charged with theft of electricity, production of marijuana, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and simple possession of marijuana.

The accused brought an application for a directed verdict of acquittal on all counts except simple possession.

The Crown presented evidence of a large-scale marijuana grow operation discovered at a residence owned by the accused, including sophisticated equipment, electrical bypass modifications, and chemical baths.

The Crown also presented circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the operation through documents found at both the grow operation location and the accused's residence.

The court applied the test from R. v. Arcuri, assessing whether the evidence, if believed, could reasonably support an inference of guilt.

The court found sufficient circumstantial evidence to support inferences of knowledge and control by the accused and dismissed the application for a directed verdict.

Applicants charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence on the basis that police breached their rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicants were stopped by plainclothes detectives during a community policing patrol.

The court found that although the applicants were arbitrarily detained when police blocked their passage on the sidewalk and exited their vehicle, the Charter breaches were not sufficiently serious to warrant exclusion of evidence under section 24(2).

The court admitted the evidence, finding that the detention was brief, the officer had reasonable grounds to arrest based on the smell of marijuana, and the reliable evidence was essential to the Crown's case.