Excessive force

The applicant, Spiro Rusha, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized during a search warrant execution, arguing the warrant lacked reasonable grounds and the Information to Obtain (ITO) was misleading.

He also challenged the lawfulness of his arrest under s. 9 of the Charter and alleged excessive force during the arrest under s. 7.

The court dismissed all applications, finding the search warrant valid based on credible, compelling, and corroborated confidential informant information, and that the affiant did not intentionally mislead the issuing justice.

The court also found reasonable grounds for the arrest and that the force used was not excessive given the circumstances.

Elijah Gilmore-Bent sought a stay of charges for possession of a loaded firearm, alleging violations of sections 7 and 12 of the Charter due to excessive force by correctional officers and a subsequent cover-up through false reports and testimony.

The court found that Officer Warburton's use of pepper spray was excessive and unnecessary, aggravated by Gilmore-Bent's 15-day segregation.

Furthermore, several officers colluded to write false use-of-force reports and provided dishonest testimony, indicating a systemic lack of oversight and accountability.

The court determined that no alternative remedy was sufficient and that continuing the prosecution would undermine the integrity of the justice system, granting a stay of proceedings.

The defendant, Adrian Thomas, was charged with multiple offences, including assault with intent to resist arrest and various firearm-related charges, following a traffic stop and struggle with police.

The court found the initial traffic stop lawful and the prolonged detention not arbitrary.

However, it found that the police used excessive force during the arrest, constituting a breach of the defendant's section 7 Charter rights, and that there were unjustified delays in providing and facilitating access to counsel, breaching section 10(b) Charter rights.

While the search of the vehicle was deemed a lawful inventory search, the court applied the Grant analysis and determined that the serious section 7 violation necessitated the exclusion of the handgun evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

Consequently, the defendant was found not guilty of all gun-related charges but guilty of resisting arrest.

The applicant, Dean McAlpine, brought a pre-trial Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence based on alleged violations of ss. 7 (excessive force during arrest) and 10(b) (right to counsel) of the Charter.

The court found that the police used excessive force by deploying a taser drive stun after the applicant was compliant, breaching his s. 7 rights.

However, the court found no breach of s. 10(b) regarding the right to counsel, as the applicant was offered a call to duty counsel when he could not provide his chosen counsel's full details, and privacy was afforded.

The court dismissed the request for a stay of proceedings and exclusion of evidence, finding that a sentence reduction would be the appropriate remedy for the s. 7 breach.

The applicants brought several pre-trial Charter motions alleging unlawful arrest, excessive force, lost evidence, and delays in implementing their right to counsel.

The Crown conceded a breach of section 10(b) due to a delay in providing access to counsel, but the court declined to exclude the drug evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding the breach was not causally connected to the discovery of the evidence and exclusion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

All other Charter applications were dismissed, as the court found the officers had reasonable grounds for the warrantless arrests, did not use excessive force, and were not unacceptably negligent in failing to preserve video evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for assault arising from an altercation on a public transit bus.

The appellant claimed he was making a citizen's arrest after the complainant inadvertently bumped him with her knapsack.

The trial judge rejected this defence, finding the appellant used grossly excessive force and had no reasonable grounds for an arrest.

On appeal, the appellant raised new arguments, including Charter violations and claims that the complainant committed mischief, and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's findings of fact or sentence, and dismissed the motions to admit fresh evidence.

The applicant, charged with firearm offences, applied for a stay of proceedings alleging multiple Charter breaches during his arrest and subsequent detention.

The court found no breaches regarding the use of force during arrest, right to counsel, or bail delay.

However, the court found breaches of s. 8 for an unreasonable strip search, and s. 12 for excessive force by correctional staff following a suicide attempt and prolonged administrative segregation.

Despite these breaches, the court declined to grant a stay of proceedings, concluding that the breaches were not among the 'clearest of cases' and should instead be considered at sentencing if the applicant is convicted.

The accused was charged with multiple firearms offences following a shooting and subsequent police pursuit.

At trial, the defence brought several Charter applications alleging excessive use of force by the Emergency Task Force during the arrest, an unlawful roadside strip search, excessive force during transport, and a delay in providing rights to counsel.

The court dismissed all applications, finding that the force used was necessary and reasonable given the accused's resistance and the dangerous circumstances.

The court also held that the roadside search was a lawful pat-down, not a strip search, and that the brief delay in advising the accused of his rights was justified by exigent circumstances including officer safety and the need for immediate medical assessment.

A minor breach of s. 10(b) occurred when officers asked questions before rights were given, but no evidence was excluded under s. 24(2).

The accused brought a Charter application to stay firearm charges or exclude a seized firearm, alleging excessive force during his arrest and breaches of his right to counsel.

The court found that the police did not use excessive force when arresting the fleeing accused.

The court also found no s. 7 breach regarding an officer commanding a witness to stop recording the arrest, as there was no actual prejudice to the accused's defence.

However, the Crown conceded that the accused's s. 10(b) rights were violated when an officer denigrated duty counsel's advice and threatened to charge the accused's family members if he did not confess.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the serious and deliberate nature of the police misconduct warranted the exclusion of the firearm under s. 24(2) of the Charter to maintain the long-term repute of the justice system.

The applicant, charged with offences related to a home invasion, brought an application alleging that the arresting officer used excessive force by smashing his head into the ground five times, in breach of his rights under ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings or a reduction in sentence.

The court found that the applicant embellished his injuries and the degree of force used, and that the medical evidence did not support his claims.

The court concluded that the officer's conduct was objectively reasonable in the exigent circumstances of the arrest.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff, an identical twin, was arrested and charged with armed robbery after his brother committed the offence.

The plaintiff sued the arresting officers and the police services board for Charter violations, false arrest, excessive force, and negligent investigation.

The court dismissed most claims, finding the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the plaintiff given his identical appearance to the suspect and the dynamic circumstances.

However, the court found the police were negligent in their investigation by failing to properly investigate, account for, and document a stolen ring seized from the plaintiff's brother at booking.

The plaintiff was awarded $18,000 in general damages for the stress and stigma of remaining under the robbery charges longer than necessary.

The plaintiff sued several police constables and the Ottawa Police Services Board for over $2 million, alleging excessive force during his arrest in 2010 caused severe injuries.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff lacked evidence to prove causation.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to produce any medical records or expert opinions establishing that the defendants caused his injuries, and noted evidence of pre-existing injuries and hospital restraints as alternative causes.

The defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

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.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against the police for false arrest and excessive force.

She moved for summary judgment, an order striking the defence for failure to produce relevant material, and other relief.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that the evidence did not establish the absence of a genuine issue for trial, particularly given conflicting eyewitness accounts.

The court also dismissed the motion to strike the defence, finding no evidence that the defendant failed to disclose the 911 tapes or other relevant information.

The accused, a bar security guard, was convicted of aggravated assault after using excessive force to eject an intoxicated patron, causing severe facial injuries.

The court weighed the seriousness of the offence against the accused's lack of criminal record, strong community support, and low risk of re-offending.

Finding the incident to be an isolated overreaction, the court imposed a suspended sentence with three years of probation, community service, a DNA order, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice in an action alleging excessive force by police officers.

The plaintiff argued that because the Woodstock Police Services Board is funded by the municipality, the action constitutes relief against a municipality, which precludes a jury trial under section 108(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the Police Services Board maintains independence from the municipality and that an action against the Board is not equivalent to an action against the municipality.

The motion to strike the jury notice was dismissed.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

During his arrest, police officers mistook him for a fugitive and used excessive force, including punching, kneeing, and tasering him while he was handcuffed and compliant.

The court found the officers' testimony to be contrived and untruthful, and accepted the accused's version of events.

Concluding that the police conduct was extra-judicial punishment that offended society's sense of fair play and decency, the court found a breach of section 7 of the Charter and ordered a stay of proceedings under section 24(1).

The applicant was stopped by police in a park while they were investigating a robbery.

The police claimed the applicant acted nervously and had a heavy pocket, leading them to believe he had a gun.

A struggle ensued, during which the applicant was beaten by multiple officers, and a handgun was found in his pocket.

The court found the officers' evidence to be contradictory and unreliable, concluding they had no reasonable grounds for the arrest or search.

The court held that the applicant's rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter were violated.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the firearm from evidence under s. 24(2) due to the seriousness of the police misconduct and the significant impact on the applicant's rights.

The accused were charged with multiple offences following the theft of two motor vehicles and a subsequent police apprehension where officers fired approximately 60 shots at the vehicles.

The accused argued for a stay of proceedings, alleging their Charter rights were violated due to racial profiling and excessive use of force by the police.

The court found no evidence of racial profiling and concluded the police force, while perhaps objectively excessive in hindsight, was a reactive response to a perceived threat to their lives, thus not violating section 7 of the Charter.

The court acquitted the accused of assault with a weapon and attempted murder, finding the Crown failed to prove intent to strike the officers, but convicted the accused of dangerous driving, failing to stop at the scene of an accident, and theft-related charges.

The accused were arrested during a high-risk takedown following an undercover police operation targeting a ketamine drug transaction.

One accused was charged with trafficking and possession of marihuana, but the court found the Crown failed to prove his knowledge or involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittals.

The other accused admitted to trafficking but brought a Charter application alleging police used excessive force during his arrest, including kicking him in the head while handcuffed.

The court found on a balance of probabilities that unknown officers subjected the accused to excessive and gratuitous force, breaching his s. 7 and s. 12 Charter rights.

Consequently, the charges against him were stayed pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter.