Justice C.A. Parry

A young person was tried on charges arising from two separate incidents: a mass shooting at a Subway restaurant in Waterloo on April 19, 2019, where approximately 35 shots were fired into a crowded establishment, and a series of offences committed on May 16, 2019, including dangerous driving, fleeing police, and possession of a loaded firearm with serial number removed.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, particularly video surveillance footage, cell phone records, GPS data, and physical evidence recovered from the scene.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence establishing identity as one of the shooters and connecting him to the May 16 incident through a clear chain of evidence.

The accused brought a Charter application challenging the lawfulness of his detention.

In an addendum to a previous ruling, the court reconsidered its conclusion regarding arbitrary detention under section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that although the officer was a trespasser at the point of detention, rendering the detention unlawful and thus arbitrary, the evidence would not be excluded under section 24(2) as admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The trial proceeded.

Constable Travis Buckle was charged with assault causing bodily harm after attempting to arrest Dale Delaney on outstanding warrants at Victoria Hospital's emergency department.

During the arrest, Delaney landed face-first on the floor, suffering serious facial injuries.

The Crown argued the arrest was unlawful due to failure to announce the reason for arrest, and alternatively that excessive force was used.

The court found the arrest was lawful, the officer reasonably believed Delaney was attempting to flee, and the force used was justified under section 25(1) of the Criminal Code.

The officer was acquitted.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging that a police officer violated his section 8 rights (freedom from unreasonable search and seizure) by attending at his front door and entering his home foyer without a warrant, and his section 9 rights (freedom from arbitrary detention) by demanding his driver's licence, vehicle registration, and insurance while inside the home.

The court found that the officer's attendance at the door for the purpose of gathering evidence exceeded the implied invitation doctrine, and that the officer's entry into the foyer was unlawful.

However, the court admitted the evidence obtained during the breach under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that exclusion would not be necessary to preserve the repute of the administration of justice.

The accused were charged with numerous Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences following a search of their basement dwelling and garage.

The charges arose from evidence obtained during a warrantless home inspection conducted by a child protection worker with police assistance, and a subsequent search warrant based on observations from that initial warrantless entry.

The court found that the warrantless home inspection violated the accused's Charter rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The worker lacked statutory authority to conduct a home inspection for investigative purposes, as the Child, Youth, and Family Services Act only authorized warrantless entries for the purpose of removing children in need of protection to a place of safety.

The court rejected the Crown's reliance on the ancillary powers doctrine, finding it does not extend to non-police officers.

The subsequent search warrant was invalid as it relied entirely on evidence obtained from the unlawful warrantless search.

All evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, and both accused were acquitted on all charges.

The accused was charged with an Over 80 offence following a RIDE program stop.

The accused alleged that the arresting officer steered him towards duty counsel after arrest, thereby breaching his constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel of choice.

The Crown conceded that steering occurred but argued it did not constitute a breach.

The court found that the officer's imprecise and careless communications misled the accused about the scope of his right to counsel of choice.

The officer failed to provide reasonable opportunities to contact alternative counsel and failed to adequately respond to the accused's expressed dissatisfaction with duty counsel.

The court found a breach of section 10(b) of the Charter and excluded the breath test evidence, resulting in an acquittal.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

The accused raised four issues: three Charter violations by the arresting officer (failure to form requisite suspicion, failure to make ASD demand forthwith, and failure to inform of right to counsel immediately upon arrest) and one issue regarding identity (whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver).

The court rejected all Charter challenges and found the accused was the driver based on compelling eyewitness identification evidence.

The court convicted the accused.

The accused was charged with assault following an incident on March 10, 2018, at the home of the complainant.

The complainant answered the door to a stranger who claimed to be visiting a friend.

After several brief encounters, the lights went out and the complainant was attacked.

The two main issues were whether the Crown proved the accused was the assailant and whether the physical contact was intentional or accidental.

The court found that the complainant's account could only be interpreted as an intentional assault, ruling out accident.

The court also found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the assailant based on the complainant's identification evidence, corroborated by circumstantial evidence including a taxi driver's near-contemporaneous observations and the accused's statements in the taxi.

The accused was charged with impaired driving, driving with blood alcohol content exceeding the legal limit, assault, and marijuana possession arising from an incident on July 24, 2017.

The accused admitted to driving while impaired but raised the defence of necessity, claiming she fled a dangerous situation.

The court found that the accused was attacked by the complainant and subsequently threatened by others at the scene, and that she had no reasonable legal alternative but to drive away.

The court accepted the defence of necessity and acquitted the accused of the driving offences.

The court also found that the accused acted in self-defence against the complainant and acquitted her of the assault charge.

The accused was found guilty of possessing a small amount of marijuana but acquitted of possessing a larger quantity due to reasonable doubt.