K. Batorska

The accused was charged with multiple robberies and firearms offences.

At the outset of his trial, he brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) rights, seeking to exclude a firearm, ammunition, and a cell phone seized upon his arrest.

The accused argued that the police lacked reasonable grounds for his warrantless arrest and that his right to counsel was unjustifiably suspended while police obtained a search warrant for his residence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the arresting officer had subjective and objective reasonable grounds to arrest the accused based on a constellation of factors linking him to the robberies.

The court also held that the 11-hour suspension of the accused's right to counsel was justified by officer and public safety concerns regarding an outstanding firearm, and that the accused failed to exercise due diligence in contacting counsel thereafter.

As no Charter breaches were established, the evidence was not excluded.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder in the death of her young son, brought an application to exclude statements she made to police.

She argued her arrest was premature, she was not brought before a justice within 24 hours, her right to counsel was violated, she was not properly advised of her jeopardy, and her statements were involuntary.

The court found a minor section 9 Charter breach for the delay in bringing her before a justice but granted no remedy.

The court dismissed the other Charter claims, finding the police had reasonable grounds for the initial arrest for failing to provide necessaries of life, and that the accused understood her right to counsel and her jeopardy at the time.

The October 13 statement was ruled voluntary and admissible, while an October 16 statement was excluded in oral reasons.

The accused, charged with the first-degree murder of his son, sought to exclude video-taped statements made to police on the basis that they were involuntary and obtained in violation of his Charter rights.

The accused argued that prior unrecorded interactions with police tainted the subsequent video-taped statements, and that police failed to properly advise him of his jeopardy for culpable homicide.

The court dismissed the application, finding no sufficient temporal or contextual connection between the unrecorded and recorded statements to taint the latter.

The court also held that the accused was not under genuine suspicion for murder at the time of the interviews, meaning the initial caution for failing to provide necessaries of life was adequate.

The statements were ruled voluntary and admissible for cross-examination.