J. Thompson

The applicant, Vernon Hall, brought a Charter application seeking to exclude evidence or a stay of proceedings, alleging violations of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b), and 11 of the Charter during a border interception and subsequent arrest for human smuggling.

The court found that the initial stop and towing of the vessel were lawful under the Customs Act and Canada Shipping Act, akin to a secondary border inspection, and therefore, the applicant's section 10(b) rights were not triggered at that stage.

The court also found no arbitrary detention, no unlawful search incident to arrest, and that the lost video evidence did not impact the applicant's right to make full answer and defence or the integrity of the justice system.

The application was dismissed.

The accused sought a review of a detention order under s. 520 of the Criminal Code following his arrest for firearms and drug offences.

He had been detained on the tertiary ground.

The accused presented fresh evidence regarding his willingness to live with his estranged father under strict house arrest conditions, which the court accepted as a material change in circumstances under the Palmer test.

The court found that a reasonable person's confidence in the administration of justice would not be undermined by his release, given the strict bail plan including a $30,000 bond, GPS ankle monitoring, and a capable surety.

The detention order was vacated and the accused was released.

The appellant, Daniel Ferriera, appealed his conviction for an "over 80" offence, arguing that the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in fact-finding and incorrectly determined that the arresting officer had objective reasonable and probable grounds for arrest.

The officer had observed signs of impairment at a collision scene.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the officer's credibility and no error in concluding that objective reasonable and probable grounds existed based on the totality of circumstances.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug.

The trial involved a Charter application regarding the legality of the detention and the failure to provide rights to counsel without delay upon arrest.

The court found a violation of section 10(b) of the Charter due to an eight-minute delay in providing rights to counsel.

Certain evidence was excluded as a result.

On the merits, despite evidence of drug use and observations consistent with impairment, the court found that the Crown had not proven impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the exclusion of certain roadside observations obtained through conscriptive means and the ambiguity of the remaining evidence.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with a demand to provide suitable samples of breath into an approved instrument.

The accused claimed he suffered from allergic bronchitis that prevented him from providing the required samples despite his best efforts.

The Crown presented evidence from the qualified breath technician and video evidence of the breath room procedure.

The accused testified that his medical condition impaired his ability to provide samples.

The court found that the accused intentionally failed to provide the second suitable sample and did not have a reasonable excuse based on his medical condition.

The court convicted the accused as charged.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while his blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit, contrary to sections 253(1)(a) and 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The trial commenced on January 13, 2014, and continued on April 16, 2014.

The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the total delay exceeded two years, only slightly more than nine months resulted from institutional or Crown delay, which fell within the Morin guidelines for the jurisdiction.

The court found that the defence was responsible for a fair amount of early delay, and while the accused suffered some prejudice in the form of stress and anxiety, this was insufficient to warrant a stay of proceedings.

The defendants brought a motion under Rules 30 and 31 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking a further and better affidavit of documents and additional production from the plaintiff in a complex civil action involving allegations of wrongful conduct relating to an investment bond valued in the millions of dollars.

The plaintiff opposed the motion and sought dismissal or a stay pending the defendants’ compliance with prior production and costs orders made by a master.

The court held that the motion raised issues more appropriately determined by a master, particularly in light of the earlier case management timetable and the fact that the master had contemplated the motion being brought before that forum.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to allow the defendants to bring it before a master on an expedited basis.

The applicants, charged with sexual assault and administering a stupefying drug, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to a 39-month delay between the charges and the trial date.

The court analyzed the delay using the Morin framework, attributing portions to inherent time requirements, defence actions, Crown actions, and institutional delay.

Although the court found actual and inferred prejudice, the unreasonable delay was calculated to be only one month beyond the Morin guidelines.

The court concluded that this short period of unreasonable delay was outweighed by the societal interest in having the serious charges determined on their merits, and dismissed the application.