Arbitrary detention

This decision addresses a Charter application in a case involving impaired driving charges against Francisco Osorio.

The court considered alleged breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter related to the timing and administration of a Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST), the grounds for arrest and breath demand, the failure to provide an interpreter, and the length of detention.

The court found the SFST demand was timely and lawful, no Charter breach arose from the administration protocols or reliance on the SFST results despite the defendant's medical condition (BPPV), and no breach occurred regarding the interpreter or detention length.

The impaired operation charge was dismissed due to reasonable doubt, but the blood alcohol concentration charge was upheld.

The court considered a Charter application by Douvainn Dean, who was charged with multiple offences including possession of a handgun, drugs, and a stolen vehicle.

The court found that the police lacked both subjective and objective grounds for Dean's detention, resulting in a violation of his section 9 Charter rights.

The court also addressed the issue of racial profiling and found no evidence that race or racial stereotypes motivated the police.

Ultimately, the evidence seized as a result of the detention was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court granted the applicant’s Charter application, finding that the police used their Highway Traffic Act powers as a pretext to stop the applicant’s vehicle to investigate a possible drug transaction, resulting in arbitrary detention contrary to section 9.

The subsequent search and seizure of drugs and a firearm were not justified under the plain view doctrine and violated section 8.

The applicant’s right to counsel under section 10(b) was also breached due to an unreasonable delay in facilitating access to duty counsel.

The court excluded the evidence under section 24(2), concluding that admitting it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the powers of police to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle and its occupants under s. 12(3) of the Cannabis Control Act, 2017.

The respondent, a passenger, was acquitted at trial after the judge found his Charter rights under ss. 9, 10(a), and 10(b) were infringed and excluded evidence of firearms found in the vehicle.

On appeal, the Court found the trial judge erred in concluding that the respondent’s rights under ss. 9 and 10(a) were violated, but agreed that s. 10(b) was breached.

The Court held that s. 12(3) of the CCA does not justify a general suspension of the right to counsel under s. 10(b), distinguishing the context from roadside sobriety stops.

The evidence was ultimately admitted, and a new trial was ordered.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed the defendant Robert Montet’s Charter application alleging violations of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in relation to breath sample evidence obtained following a roadside Approved Screening Device (ASD) failure.

The Court found no breach of section 7 regarding alleged failure to provide fresh clothing, no section 8 violation as the warrantless breath demands were reasonable, no section 9 violation for alleged arbitrary detention despite a 6.5-hour hold post-breath sample, and no section 10(b) violation for delays in providing rights to counsel.

The breath sample evidence was admitted, resulting in a finding of guilt for driving with blood alcohol content over 80 mg per 100 mL under section 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Ontario Court of Justice considered whether breath samples obtained following a demand made with a non-operational Approved Screening Device (ASD) should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found that the initial detention was lawful but became arbitrary when the officer continued detention solely to administer the ASD while lacking mouthpieces, rendering the demand invalid.

Subsequent arrest and breath samples were consequential Charter breaches.

The court held the breach was minor and inadvertent, mitigated by the accused’s opportunity to consult counsel, and that admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused’s application to exclude the evidence was dismissed, and he was found guilty.

This decision addresses multiple Charter breaches arising from the detention, search, and arrest of Omar Yaqubi in Toronto's Entertainment District.

The court found breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter, including arbitrary detention without reasonable suspicion, unlawful search without safety justification, and failure to promptly inform and facilitate the right to counsel.

The court excluded the evidence obtained during the unlawful detention and search pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter.

Alternatively, a stay of proceedings was directed due to the loss of critical evidence caused by police muting body-worn cameras and failure to preserve key witness information, impairing the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

The accused, Maninder Grewal, was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance and having a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) equal to or above 80 mg within two hours of operating a conveyance.

The trial focused on several Charter-based arguments, including the lawfulness of his arrest and breath demand, breaches of his right to counsel (informational component and premature termination of call), arbitrary detention, and unreasonable search and seizure related to being videotaped while urinating.

The court found breaches of the accused's s. 10(b) right to counsel (false dichotomy of options and premature termination) and s. 9 right to not be arbitrarily detained.

The court dismissed the s. 8 and s. 9 arguments related to the ASD/mouth alcohol issue and the privacy issue while urinating.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the breath sample evidence due to the seriousness and impact of the Charter breaches.

The accused, Ashton Bell, faced serious firearms charges and brought a Charter application under s. 24(2) to exclude evidence (a firearm) alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b), primarily due to racial profiling during a traffic stop, search, and arrest.

The Crown conceded a s. 10(b) breach (delay in access to counsel) but argued for admission of evidence.

The court found no racial profiling or s. 8/9 breaches, but confirmed the s. 10(b) breach.

Applying the Grant test, the court determined that admitting the firearm would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, given the less serious nature of the breach, minimal impact on the accused, and high societal interest in adjudicating serious firearms offences.

The evidence was admitted, leading to conviction on all charges.

The applicants, Ajitpal Gill and Gurvinder Kang, brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings based on alleged infringements of their rights under Sections 7, 9, and 12.

They claimed excessive force by police during arrest and a breach of their right to be brought before a justice within 24 hours as per Section 503 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while some police conduct was unprofessional, it did not amount to a substantial interference with the applicants' physical and psychological integrity, especially given the serious and dangerous circumstances preceding the arrest.

Regarding the 24-hour rule breach, the Crown conceded the breach, but the court found it to be technical and inconsequential, causing no actual prejudice.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The defendant, Matthew McNair, was charged with refusing a breath sample, failing to comply with a release order, and several Highway Traffic Act offences.

The defence sought to exclude evidence of the breath refusal due to alleged violations of Charter rights (ss. 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b)) and an unlawful breath demand.

The court found that the defendant's s. 9, 10(a), and 10(b) Charter rights were violated due to arbitrary detention, prolonged handcuffing, and delayed/unclear right to counsel cautions.

Applying the Grant analysis, the court excluded the evidence of the breath refusal.

Additionally, the breath demand itself was found unlawful due to non-compliance with the "immediacy" requirement of s. 320.27 of the Criminal Code and the absence of an Approved Screening Device (ASD).

However, evidence for the Highway Traffic Act offences and the breach of the release order was admitted as these offences occurred prior to the Charter breaches and the evidence was not "obtained in a manner" that violated the Charter.

Mark Godwin pleaded not guilty to impaired operation and over 80 mg.

The defence sought to exclude breath test results, alleging violations of Charter sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found that the police fulfilled their s. 10(b) obligations to facilitate access to counsel, the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable (no s. 8 breach), and the continued detention was lawful (no s. 9 breach) given the accused's high blood alcohol readings.

The court found the accused guilty of both charges, concluding that the breath test results were admissible and that there was ample evidence of impairment even without the readings.

Chadwick Francis was stopped at a RIDE spot-check where police detected a strong odour of cannabis.

After producing an opened cannabis packet, a subsequent search of his vehicle revealed a loaded handgun.

Francis challenged the lawfulness of the search and his detention, alleging racial profiling and violations of his Charter rights (sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b)).

The court found that the cannabis was not lawfully packaged for transport under the Cannabis Control Act, justifying the search.

It also determined that there was no racial profiling and that the delay in providing counsel rights was reasonable.

Francis was found guilty of four firearms-related offences.

The accused, Ryan Schuster, was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg.

The defence alleged breaches of the accused's Charter rights under sections 9 and 10(b), and sought exclusion of breath readings.

The court summarily dismissed the section 9 breach allegation due to non-compliance with the Criminal Rules of the Ontario Court of Justice regarding factual pleading.

The court found no breaches of section 10(b), ruling that police were not obligated to advise the accused he could wait for specific counsel before speaking with duty counsel, nor were they required to re-offer counsel options after he expressed dissatisfaction with duty counsel, given the reasonable steps taken by the police.

Even if a breach occurred, the court stated it would not exclude the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

On the impaired operation charge, the court found the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt based on the totality of circumstantial evidence, including driving behaviour, physical indicia, and belligerent conduct.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content exceeding the legal limit.

He challenged the admissibility of evidence, alleging breaches of his Charter rights under sections 9 (arbitrary detention/overholding) and 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found no arbitrary detention, but did find a minor breach of the right to counsel due to an 11-minute delay in providing the approved screening device demand.

Applying the Grant test, the court determined that admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, given the minor nature of the breach, minimal impact on the accused's interests, and strong societal interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.

The defendant was found guilty.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with judicial interim release conditions (curfew and weapons prohibition) after a traffic stop.

He brought a Charter application alleging violations of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found that the accused's detention became arbitrary, his s. 10(a) rights were violated by delayed notification of reasons for detention, and his s. 10(b) rights were violated by delayed access to counsel and incomplete information.

The search of his person and wallet was also found to be illegal.

Applying the s. 24(2) Grant analysis, the court excluded the seized weapons due to serious police misconduct and significant impact on the accused's Charter rights, leading to a finding of not guilty on the weapons charge.

The curfew charge was dismissed earlier by the Crown.

The defendant, Robert Cairney, was charged with "over 79" contrary to section 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter, seeking a stay or exclusion of breath readings.

The court found no section 8 violation regarding the immediacy of the ASD demand or residual mouth alcohol.

However, it found a minor section 10(b) breach due to a 3-5 minute delay in providing rights to counsel and a section 9 breach due to an approximate two-hour overholding caused by paperwork delays.

Despite these breaches, the court declined to stay the charges under section 24(1) or exclude the breath samples under section 24(2), finding the breaches to be of low seriousness and low impact, and that admission of evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The defendant was found guilty.

The accused, Jason Ronald Martin, faced multiple charges including impaired driving, drug possession, and probation breaches.

The defence brought Charter applications alleging breaches of ss. 8 (unreasonable search due to a routine strip search and inadequate record-keeping), 9 (arbitrary detention due to delay in bail hearing), and 10(a) and (b) (right to be informed of reasons for arrest and right to counsel).

The court found breaches of s. 8 and ss. 10(a) and (b), noting the police's routine strip search policy and their failure to promptly and clearly inform the accused of all charges.

The s. 9 application was dismissed as the delay in bringing the accused before a justice was deemed reasonable given the circumstances.

Applying the Grant test under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court determined that the serious nature of the breaches and their significant impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests warranted the exclusion of all evidence.

Consequently, all charges against the accused were dismissed.

The accused was charged with operating a conveyance in excess of the legal limit.

The court found a serious breach of the accused's section 10(b) Charter right to counsel due to the police officer's failure to adequately explain the distinction between a paralegal and a lawyer in the context of impaired driving charges.

While other alleged Charter breaches (delay in right to counsel, roadside call, strip search, and overhold) were dismissed, the s. 10(b) breach was deemed serious enough to warrant the exclusion of breath testing evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Consequently, the accused was found not guilty.

The defendant was charged with driving while disqualified.

The court addressed two main issues: the defendant's knowledge of the disqualification and whether the police stop and subsequent vehicle search violated sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to racial profiling.

The court found the Crown proved the defendant's knowledge of the disqualification.

However, the warrantless search of the vehicle was deemed an unreasonable search (s. 8 violation) and tainted by racial profiling.

This racial profiling was also found to have tainted the initial traffic stop (s. 9 violation).

Consequently, the evidence obtained (defendant's self-identification) was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, leading to the dismissal of the charge.