Katherine Stewart

The applicant was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample.

He brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that his right to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed.

The court applied the Jordan framework and found that while the net delay exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling, the Crown successfully rebutted the presumption by establishing exceptional circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also found that the applicant failed to demonstrate meaningful and sustained efforts to expedite the proceedings and that the case did not take markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The application was dismissed.

Bashir Osman, facing serious firearm charges and breaches of recognizance, sought a bail review after being denied bail.

The application was heard during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was accepted as a material change in circumstances.

The court considered the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention under the Criminal Code, including the strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offences, the circumstances of their commission, and the potential for a lengthy sentence.

Special consideration was given to the accused's health (asthma) and the risks posed by COVID-19 in congregant correctional facilities.

The court found that a robust supervision plan, including electronic monitoring and multiple sureties, mitigated public safety concerns.

Ultimately, the court concluded that continued detention was not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, ordering the accused's release with strict conditions.

The offender was convicted of possession of a prohibited firearm and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The firearm, a loaded .45 calibre handgun, was found hidden under a bedsheet on a couch in the offender's apartment.

The offender claimed he was holding it for a friend.

The court sentenced the offender to 36 months for the firearm offence and 8 months consecutive for the breach of the prohibition order, for a total of 44 months.

After applying a 1.5:1 credit for pre-sentence custody and an additional 90 days for harsh conditions due to institutional lockdowns, the sentence was reduced to time served plus one day.

The defendants brought a Garofoli application seeking to exclude evidence seized from an apartment pursuant to a search warrant, alleging breaches of their s. 8 Charter rights.

The court found that while a police officer's warrantless entry to 'freeze' the apartment violated s. 8, the breach was committed in good faith and did not warrant exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2).

After reviewing the Information to Obtain (ITO) and making necessary excisions, the court concluded that the redacted ITO, amplified by a judicial summary of confidential informant information, provided sufficient reliable evidence for the issuing justice to grant the warrant.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was arrested for possession of a firearm after a loaded gun was found in an apartment she shared with her son.

At the police station, she was subjected to a Level 3 strip search, which included the removal of her underwire bra.

She brought a Charter application arguing the search violated her s. 8 rights.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the strip search, as it was conducted as a matter of routine policy rather than on a case-by-case basis.

Given the serious and systemic nature of the police misconduct in disregarding established law on strip searches, the court concluded that a stay of proceedings was the only appropriate remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter to preserve the integrity of the justice system.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude drug evidence found on his person during an arrest.

The police officers claimed they detained the accused because he was walking in a manner that suggested he was concealing a firearm.

The court found the officers' testimony lacked credibility and concluded the accused was targeted due to his perceived gang affiliation.

The court held that the detention, arrest, and subsequent search were unlawful, violating the accused's rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10(a) of the Charter.

The officers also used excessive force and lied to the accused about the reason for his detention.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, citing the officers' bad faith and deliberate disregard for the accused's Charter rights.

During a murder trial, the accused sought to exclude an utterance made to a police officer at the scene and a videotaped statement made at the police station.

The court held that the utterance at the scene was voluntary and not the product of a detention, as the officer's question was a general inquiry.

However, the court excluded the videotaped statement under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the police breached the accused's s. 10(a) and 10(b) rights by deliberately failing to advise him that his jeopardy had increased to manslaughter following the victim's death.