Excessive force

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 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 accused was charged with possession of a loaded restricted firearm following a police takedown in a parking lot.

The police relied on information from two confidential informants to form reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest.

The accused brought Charter applications under sections 7 and 9, alleging arbitrary detention and excessive force by police.

The court dismissed the Charter applications, finding the police had sufficient grounds for arrest and did not use excessive force.

The court accepted the police evidence that the firearm was found in the accused's waistband and found the accused guilty of all charges.

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 defendant police services board brought a motion to strike paragraph 28 of the plaintiff's amended statement of claim without leave to amend.

The court found that the plaintiff's amendments, which alleged the board failed to have a system to track Charter violations and excessive force by officers, fell under the board's statutory responsibilities and provided sufficient material facts.

The motion to strike the paragraph in its entirety was dismissed, though the word 'training' was struck as it violated a previous order.

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 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.

The accused brought a pre-trial Charter application seeking to exclude evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant at her residence.

She alleged violations of her s. 7 and s. 8 Charter rights, claiming police used excessive force during her arrest, improperly breached her door without knocking, and subjected her to humiliating strip searches both outside her residence and at the police station.

The court dismissed the application, finding the dynamic entry was justified by safety and evidence preservation concerns, the force used during arrest was proportionate and necessary, the outdoor search was a valid pat-down incident to arrest, and the strip search at the station was justified and conducted reasonably.

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 appellant was convicted of second degree murder for shooting the victim through the heart in a bus shelter in broad daylight.

The appellant claimed self-defence under former s. 34(2) of the Criminal Code, asserting that the victim had unlawfully assaulted him.

The jury rejected this claim and found him guilty.

The trial judge imposed a parole ineligibility period of 14 years.

On appeal, the appellant raised three grounds regarding the jury instructions on self-defence and challenged the parole ineligibility period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal from conviction and the appeal from sentence, finding no error in principle or misdirection by the trial judge.

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 plaintiff sued the police for negligent investigation, assault and battery, misfeasance of public office, and conversion of property following his arrest on drug trafficking charges that were later stayed.

The plaintiff alleged the police relied on fabricated information to obtain wiretap authorizations and used excessive force during his arrest, causing severe injuries including deep vein thrombosis.

The court dismissed the action in its entirety, finding the wiretap authorizations were validly issued based on reasonable grounds and the police did not breach their duty of care.

The court also rejected the plaintiff's claims of excessive force, finding his injuries were minor, his testimony lacked credibility, and his severe medical issues were pre-existing.

The Public Guardian and Trustee, acting as litigation guardian for a plaintiff under a disability, brought a motion under Rule 7.08 for court approval of a $65,000 settlement of his claims against police officers for alleged excessive use of force (Taser deployment).

The plaintiff's family opposed the settlement, arguing for higher damages.

The court reviewed the liability risks, including conflicting evidence on the number of Taser deployments and the application of s. 25(2) of the Criminal Code, as well as the medical evidence regarding damages.

The court concluded the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the plaintiff's best interests, and approved the settlement along with $5,000 in costs to the PGT.

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 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.

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 applicant, charged with break and enter and other offences, sought a stay of proceedings or a reduction in sentence under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging that police used excessive force during his arrest in violation of ss. 7 and 12.

The applicant fled the scene, ran through fences and trees, and actively resisted arrest when tackled.

The court found that the police officers' use of pepper spray, distractionary strikes, and baton strikes was a proportionate, necessary, and reasonable response to the applicant's resistance and potential threat.

The application was dismissed as no Charter breach occurred.

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.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was convicted of assault causing bodily harm after a traffic altercation where he arrested a dangerous driver and applied excessive force, breaking the driver's jaw.

He appealed his conviction and 90-day intermittent jail sentence.

The summary conviction appeal court dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence, proper application of the burden of proof, and proper admission of lay opinion evidence.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal, finding the case exceptional due to the appellant's extraordinary community service and the significant provocation involved.

The custodial sentence was set aside and replaced with one year of probation and 100 hours of community service.