Judy Beryl Bielefeld

The applicant sought a s.520 review of a detention order made on secondary grounds.

The court found several material changes in circumstances since the original show cause hearing, including the COVID-19 pandemic, a new release plan involving residence with his daughter, and the withdrawal of one of the charges.

The court also expressed reservations about the adequacy of the reasons for the initial detention order.

Applying principles favouring release, the court granted the bail review and ordered the applicant's release on specific conditions, emphasizing the importance of proportionality of pre-trial detention, especially given potential trial delays due to the pandemic.

The applicant, facing charges of importing a Schedule I controlled substance, brought a Rowbotham application for state funding for his defence after being denied Legal Aid.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of financial hardship.

The court found that the applicant had exhausted all Legal Aid appeals, lacked the means to privately retain counsel due to health issues and unemployment, and that legal representation was essential for a fair trial given the complexity of the case.

The application was granted, and Legal Aid Ontario was ordered to issue a certificate.

Max Bourdeau, facing serious drug trafficking charges, brought a Rowbotham application seeking state-funded counsel and a stay of proceedings pending its provision, after being denied Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) coverage.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the charges were serious and likely to result in imprisonment, the case was not sufficiently complex to require counsel for a fair trial.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate indigence, given his income, lack of significant liabilities, and previous ability to secure bail and private counsel for earlier stages of the proceedings.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine contrary to section 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Police responded to an anonymous 911 call reporting that the accused was at her residence with a firearm and cocaine.

Officers entered the residence without a warrant and located cocaine in plain view on a bedroom dresser.

The accused made an inculpatory statement to police while detained in a police vehicle.

The court conducted a Charter application addressing whether the warrantless entry and search violated section 8 rights, and whether the accused's statement was obtained in violation of section 10(b) rights.

The appellant appealed a conviction for possession of a Schedule I substance (oxycodone) under s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence.

The Crown’s case at trial was entirely circumstantial and relied on the discovery of oxycodone pills packaged in a cylindrical cellophane container near the appellant’s feet in a courthouse holding cell, alongside a broken condom in a toilet where the appellant had been seated.

The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to consider exculpatory evidence and misapprehended the evidence regarding the drug packaging and condom.

The court held that the trial judge properly assessed the totality of the circumstantial evidence and reasonably rejected the defence’s alternative hypothesis that the drugs had been left earlier by another inmate.

The appellate judge concluded that the evidence supported the inference that the appellant had concealed the drugs in a body cavity and removed them in the cell.

The accused, charged with producing and possessing marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, applied to exclude evidence obtained from a general warrant and a subsequent CDSA warrant, alleging a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The accused argued the police lacked reasonable grounds for the general warrant and misled the issuing judge.

The court found the investigating officer had reasonable grounds based on a confidential informant's tip corroborated by hydro records and police investigation, and acted in good faith.

The court concluded there was no s. 8 Charter breach and, alternatively, that the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The application was dismissed.