Excessive force

The applicant, John Geddes, brought a Charter application under ss. 7, 8, and 9, seeking a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence (knife, firearm, drugs) seized upon his arrest.

He argued police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, the search was illegal, and excessive force was used.

The court dismissed the application, finding that police had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest based on DVR footage and victim information, the search incident to arrest was lawful and reasonable for safety and evidence discovery, and the force used was reasonable, proportionate, and necessary given the applicant's resistance and the dynamic circumstances.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings for Charter breaches (ss. 7, 8, 9, 12) related to an unlawful arrest and excessive force by police.

The Crown conceded the unlawful arrest due to a deficient Feeney warrant.

The court found that police used excessive force, violating the applicant's ss. 7 and 12 Charter rights, particularly regarding a "shield takedown" and physical contact.

However, the court determined that a stay of proceedings was not warranted as it was not one of the "clearest of cases," and alternative remedies like sentence reduction and financial restitution were available to uphold the integrity of the justice system.

The accused was arrested outside a target apartment building on suspicion of possession for the purpose of trafficking crystal methamphetamine and GHB.

The court found that the arrest was unlawful, lacking reasonable and probable grounds.

The detectives relied on mere suspicion based on the accused's presence outside the building and a "hard stare," without evidence connecting him to the target unit or any drug activity.

The court found multiple Charter breaches including violations of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b), stemming from an unlawful arrest effected through excessive force, an unlawful search, and a three-and-a-half-hour delay in providing access to counsel.

The court excluded the evidence and dismissed all charges.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action for damages arising from an arrest.

The defendants, as the successful parties, sought costs.

The plaintiffs argued against a cost award, citing divided success, public interest litigation, and access to justice concerns.

The court rejected these arguments, affirming the general principle that costs follow the event.

While finding the defendants entitled to costs, the court declined to impose joint and several liability on both plaintiffs, instead apportioning costs separately.

The total amount of costs awarded was significantly reduced from the amount sought by the defendants, emphasizing proportionality and reasonableness, particularly given the case's initial designation as a simplified procedure action.

James Grant brought an application under sections 7 and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a stay of criminal charges, alleging numerous Charter violations by state agents following his arrest for importing a controlled substance.

The alleged violations included unlawful detention, search, denial of counsel, excessive force during fingerprinting and strip searches, and judicial bias stemming from his "sovereign citizen" beliefs.

The court dismissed the application, finding no Charter breaches in the initial border search, fingerprinting incidents, or the courthouse flagpole incident.

It also determined that prison officials were justified in using force for a mandatory strip search in a custodial setting and that there was no reasonable apprehension of judicial bias or discrimination based on the applicant's beliefs.

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking, brought a Charter s. 8 application to exclude evidence obtained during a strip search, alleging excessive force and improper conduct.

The court found that while the applicant was briefly completely undressed, a minor deviation from *Golden* guidelines, the force used was the minimum necessary given the applicant's non-compliance and safety concerns.

The application was dismissed as no Charter infringement was found.

The applicant, Kevin Morris, sought a stay of proceedings for firearm offences, alleging violations of his Charter rights under ss. 7, 9, and 10.

The court found no s. 9 violation regarding arbitrary detention or arrest, as police had reasonable grounds to arrest after the applicant fled.

A s. 7 violation was found due to D.C. Moorcroft's careless driving that struck the applicant, but not for excessive force by P.C. Faduck during the arrest.

A s. 10(b) violation occurred when P.C. Keefer questioned the applicant after he asserted his right to counsel, though the delay in accessing counsel was deemed reasonable due to medical needs.

Despite the Charter violations, the court dismissed the stay application, finding the violations were not egregious enough to warrant a stay, and a sentence reduction would be a more appropriate remedy.

The applicant, Javoni Palma, facing a charge of possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, brought three applications at the outset of his trial, alleging violations of his section 7 and section 9 Charter rights.

The applications sought exclusion of evidence or a stay of proceedings, based on claims of arbitrary detention, excessive force during arrest, and lost video evidence from seized iPhones.

The court dismissed all three applications, finding that the police had reasonable grounds for investigative detention, did not use excessive force, and that the alleged lost evidence was either irrelevant or not proven to have been tampered with by police.

A Hamilton Police officer with approximately two years of experience was charged with assault causing bodily harm after punching a suspect in the face during an arrest.

The suspect, a 35-year-old man with mental health issues, had spat on the officer.

The officer delivered three punches total: one immediately after being spat upon (conceded as reasonable by the Crown), and two additional punches while the suspect was on the ground and handcuffed.

The court found the latter two punches were excessive and not protected by section 25 of the Criminal Code, as they were delivered in retribution rather than for a legitimate law enforcement purpose.

However, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either of the two excessive punches caused the suspect's facial fracture, which required surgery.

The officer was acquitted of assault causing bodily harm but convicted of the lesser included offence of assault.

The accused, Jarnail Singh, faced six criminal charges including obstruction of a peace officer, dangerous driving, assault with a weapon, assault to resist arrest, and two counts of possession of controlled substances.

The accused conceded guilt on the drug possession charges.

The court also heard a Charter application alleging arrest without reasonable grounds and excessive force.

The court found that while initial grounds for arrest were lacking, reasonable grounds existed at the time of actual arrest, thus no Charter breach regarding the arrest itself.

However, the court found excessive force was used post-shooting, but not the shooting itself.

The application for a stay of proceedings was denied, with the court noting that police conduct would be considered at sentencing.

The accused was acquitted on the charges of obstruction, assault with a weapon, assault to resist arrest, and dangerous driving, primarily due to a reasonable doubt as to whether he knew the plainclothes officers were police and a mistake of fact negating the mens rea for dangerous driving.

The plaintiff sued police officers and the London Police Services Board for negligent investigation, false imprisonment, breach of Charter rights (warrantless entry), excessive force, and negligent transport, seeking damages for injuries sustained during arrest and transport.

The court dismissed claims for negligent investigation, false imprisonment, excessive force, and negligent transport.

However, it found a breach of the plaintiff's s. 8 Charter rights due to the officers' warrantless entry into his home, which was deemed to be in bad faith.

Damages were awarded for psychological injuries (PTSD and depression) causally linked to the incident, and for vindication and deterrence of the Charter breach, totaling $32,500.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm contrary to section 267(b) of the Criminal Code for punching the complainant twice in the face at a private birthday party on October 25, 2013.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused claimed he acted in self-defence after the complainant punched him first.

The trial judge found the Crown's witnesses credible and reliable, rejecting the defence witnesses' testimony as fabricated and internally inconsistent.

The court concluded the complainant did not apply any force or pose any threat to the accused, and therefore the self-defence claim failed.

The accused was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm.

The offender, a nightclub bouncer, was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm after using excessive force to eject an intoxicated patron.

Despite the pre-sentence report indicating a lack of remorse, the court considered mitigating factors including the offender's first-time offender status, strong community ties, and the complainant's provocative behavior.

The Crown sought intermittent incarceration, while the defence requested a conditional discharge.

The court granted a conditional discharge with probation, emphasizing general deterrence for security staff against excessive force, but also acknowledging the offender's recent nuanced understanding and rehabilitation prospects.

A firearms prohibition was issued, but a DNA order was deemed disproportionate and unnecessary.

The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired driving, assault with intent to resist arrest, and refusal to comply with a breath sample demand, and his sentence.

The appeal raised three grounds: alleged Charter violations concerning excessive police force (ss. 7 and 12) and the right to counsel (s. 10(b)), and an error in convicting for assault resisting arrest.

The court dismissed all grounds of appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the police use of force was reasonable in the circumstances, that the appellant failed to diligently assert his right to counsel, and that the elements of assault with intent to resist arrest were proven.

The court clarified the distinction between the burden of proof for Charter motions (balance of probabilities) and for criminal charges (beyond a reasonable doubt), and the limited application of the "Prosper warning" for the right to counsel.

A young person charged with robbery with a firearm, point firearm, assault with a weapon, disguise with intent, and conspiracy to commit robbery brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicant alleged that Toronto Police Service Hold-up Squad officers used excessive force by beating him while he was detained in an interview room at 41 Division.

The applicant also alleged breaches of his rights under sections 7, 10(a), 10(b), and 12 of the Charter.

The court found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that he was assaulted in the manner alleged.

The court rejected the applicant's evidence as unreliable and found that the injuries observed were inconsistent with the alleged brutal assault.

The court concluded that the officers' actions were justified and proportional to the applicant's aggressive behaviour.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The defendant brought a Charter application alleging that the actions of PC Cooper were excessive and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The incident occurred in the cell area of a police station when the officer was removing the defendant's handcuffs.

The defendant tensed and pulled his arm, which the officer interpreted as a precursor to aggressive movement.

The officer then took the defendant to the ground using a choke hold.

The court found that the defendant's section 7 Charter rights were infringed, as the officer's use of force was excessive in the circumstances.

Evidence obtained as a result was excluded.

The accused was convicted of obstruct police, personation, and possession of marijuana, and acquitted of three counts of assault police and one count of threatening an officer.

The court found breaches of sections 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to extensive police misconduct, including excessive force, collusion, and false testimony.

The Crown sought a reduced sentence as the remedy, while the defence sought a stay of proceedings.

The court granted a stay of proceedings for all three remaining offences, finding that the depth and breadth of police misconduct—including failure to address injuries, false statements to superiors, unchallenged assault, collusion in notes and testimony, and excessive force against a restrained and defenceless accused—was so egregious that only a stay could adequately address the damage to the integrity of the justice system.

A police constable pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm after punching a photographer in the face during a noise complaint investigation at a restaurant in Niagara Falls.

The defendant sought an absolute discharge while the Crown sought a suspended sentence.

The court rejected the discharge, finding that while the defendant had significant mitigating factors including a clean record, community involvement, and remorse, the offence constituted a serious breach of trust.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with one year probation, including 40 hours of community service, a no-contact order, and a DNA order.

The court emphasized that police officers must be held to a higher standard and that the use of excessive force, particularly in conjunction with an unlawful direction to stop photographing, undermines public confidence in law enforcement.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and having a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of section 7 rights based on excessive force during arrest and loss of evidence (14 minutes of DVD recording from the breath room).

The court found that the accused sustained injuries during arrest including abrasions to his face, a cut above his eye, a bump on his head, a severely injured right thigh, and sore shoulders.

The court accepted the accused's testimony that he was subjected to excessive force, including a knee strike to his leg and multiple blows to his back while being restrained.

The court also found that the loss of the final 14 minutes of the breath room recording constituted a breach of the accused's right to make full answer and defence due to unacceptable negligence in evidence preservation.

A stay of proceedings was granted as the appropriate remedy.

The accused was charged with domestic assault.

He brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings, arguing that police conduct during his arrest violated sections 7, 9, and 12 of the Charter.

The accused alleged that police used excessive force when they tackled him to the ground, resulting in a broken cheekbone and broken ribs.

He also challenged the lawfulness of police entry into his apartment and raised concerns about being denied access to a washroom while in custody.

The court found that while the police use of force was excessive and violated section 7 of the Charter, a stay of proceedings was not the appropriate remedy.

The court determined that the officer acted in good faith in a volatile situation, and that sentencing principles would be flexible enough to address the circumstances of the arrest.