Excessive force

The accused was arrested on a Feeney warrant by the Emergency Task Force.

During the dynamic entry, an officer stomped on the accused's head, causing injury.

Police subsequently searched a backpack found in the unit, discovering cocaine and cash, which they used to obtain a search warrant for the unit.

The search yielded a loaded prohibited firearm, ammunition, and large quantities of drugs.

The court found breaches of the accused's s. 7 rights (excessive force) and s. 8 rights (unlawful search of the backpack and unit), but declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) due to the high public interest in adjudicating the serious firearm and drug charges.

At trial, the accused was acquitted of the drug charges due to reasonable doubt about his knowledge and control of the substances, but convicted of the firearm charges based on his admission of ownership.

The applicant brought a Charter application seeking to exclude firearms and ammunition seized during the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

He alleged breaches of his rights under ss. 7, 8, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found the search warrants were valid and the applicant lacked standing to challenge the failure to file a Report to Justice for discarded property.

However, the court found that police used excessive force in breach of s. 7 by deploying a taser on the unarmed applicant and dragging him by his hair.

The court also found a breach of s. 10(b) because police failed to hold off on questioning the applicant before facilitating his right to counsel.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and excluded the firearms and ammunition under s. 24(2).

The offender pled guilty to conspiracy to export cannabis, possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possessing proceeds of crime, and breaching a weapons prohibition order.

During his arrest, police used excessive force by unjustifiably tasering him, resulting in a section 7 Charter breach.

The Crown sought a 5-year sentence, while the offender sought a conditional sentence.

The court weighed the gravity of the offences, including the large quantities of drugs and sophisticated conspiracy, against mitigating factors such as the guilty pleas, house arrest bail, and the Charter breach.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4 years imprisonment.

A peace officer convicted of aggravated assault appealed his conviction following use of force against a detainee.

The trial judge found the officer had no reasonable grounds to use force and that the force applied — striking the detainee multiple times in the head and throwing him to the ground — was unnecessary and excessive, precluding reliance on the statutory defence under s. 25(1) of the Criminal Code.

The majority of the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction on the basis that the trial judge's findings of fact were comprehensive and amply supported by the evidence.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's reasons were sufficient in law and that the findings of fact were not subject to appellate intervention.

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 arrested for armed robbery following a high-speed police chase and foot pursuit.

He brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his s. 7, s. 10(a), and s. 10(b) rights due to the arresting officer's use of force and a delay of over seven hours in facilitating access to counsel.

The court dismissed the s. 7 and s. 10(a) claims, finding the force used was reasonable and the short delay in advising him of the reasons for arrest was justified.

However, the court found a serious breach of the implementational component of s. 10(b), as the police failed to take proactive steps to facilitate access to counsel while the accused was at the hospital and unjustifiably delayed access at the police station.

The determination of the appropriate remedy was deferred to sentencing.

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 accused was charged with multiple offences including possession of stolen property and firearms following a break and enter.

During his arrest after fleeing a stolen van, a police officer shot the accused in the leg, believing the accused was armed and about to shoot.

The accused brought a Charter application under ss. 7 and 12, alleging excessive force by the police.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the officer's belief that he faced imminent grievous bodily harm or death was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as not credible and entered convictions on counts 2 through 6 of the indictment.

The applicant, wanted for attempted murder, was arrested during a high-risk police takedown.

During the arrest, an officer broke the driver's side window with a shotgun, accidentally striking the applicant's head and causing lacerations.

The applicant brought an application under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging excessive force in violation of his ss. 7 and 12 rights, and sought a stay of proceedings.

The court dismissed the application, finding the officer's actions were objectively reasonable and proportionate given the applicant's non-compliance and the officer's belief that the applicant was reaching for a firearm.

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 plaintiff brought a civil action against the Toronto Police Services Board and individual officers, alleging they used excessive force during his arrest and were negligent in his subsequent detention.

The plaintiff claimed he was severely beaten without warning, while the police testified they executed a controlled take-down after he resisted arrest.

The court found the police officers' evidence credible and reliable, concluding that the force used was necessary, justified, and not excessive under section 25(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's claims of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, ultimately dismissing the action in its entirety.

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 respondent was arrested by Ontario Provincial Police officers on May 24, 2009, near Douglas Creek Estates in Caledonia while carrying a Canadian flag to participate in a flag-raising rally.

The trial judge found the arrest was unlawful and awarded damages for false arrest, wrongful imprisonment, and breach of Charter rights.

On appeal, the majority (Nordheimer and Cronk JJ.A.) found the arrest was lawful as a preventive measure to avoid an imminent breach of the peace, but remitted the case for a new trial on the issue of excessive force.

Huscroft J.A. dissented, finding the arrest was unlawful and that the trial judge's findings should not be disturbed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault and his sentence.

The trial judge found that while the appellant initially acted in self-defence during an altercation with an intruder in his apartment, he went beyond the limits of self-defence by continuing to strike the victim with a metal object after the threat had diminished.

The conviction appeal was dismissed as the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed.

The appellate court found the trial judge erred in principle by failing to recognize the significant mitigating factors arising from the appellant's initial justification in self-defence and the victim's role as an aggressor and trespasser.

The sentence was reduced from six years to time served (approximately two and one-half years).

A Court Prisoner Security Officer (CPSO) was charged with assault causing bodily harm under section 267 of the Criminal Code after forcefully pushing a prisoner into a concrete wall in a dry cell, causing dental injuries.

The Crown alleged the accused used excessive force beyond what was necessary.

The Defence argued the accused was justified under section 25 of the Criminal Code in using force to place a resistant prisoner into custody.

The court found the accused guilty, determining that the force used was intentional and excessive, driven by frustration and a desire to assert authority rather than by legitimate security concerns.

The accused was charged with three drug-related offences (possession of marijuana, possession for purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime) and three provincial offences (assaulting a peace officer and two counts of failing to comply with recognizance).

During a traffic stop for a seatbelt violation, a police officer observed the accused with his hand in his jacket pocket and smelled unburned marijuana.

The officer placed his hand on the accused and pushed him back into the vehicle, then subsequently pulled him out to effect an arrest.

A physical altercation ensued.

The trial judge found that the officer lacked reasonable grounds to arrest, violated the accused's Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure, and used excessive force.

The evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The plaintiff brought a civil action alleging assault and excessive force by police officers during an arrest that resulted in a shoulder injury.

The plaintiff conceded that the officers had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest but argued that the arresting officer used excessive force.

The court found that the officer used only a simple grab to pull the plaintiff away from discarded drugs and another suspect, causing the plaintiff to fall and injure his shoulder.

Applying principles under s. 25 of the Criminal Code and relevant case law on justified use of force, the court held that the force used was reasonable in the circumstances.

The action for damages was dismissed.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings on drug trafficking charges, alleging that police used excessive force during his arrest while executing a search warrant for firearms.

The applicant claimed repeated kicks to the head and a blow with a shotgun butt, asserting violations of ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The court rejected the applicant’s account as not credible and accepted the officers’ evidence that the applicant resisted arrest in a confined space during a high-risk firearms search.

The court found that the force used to gain control of the applicant was reasonable and that the injury sustained was an unintended consequence of lawful force.

No Charter breach was established and the requested stay was denied.

The applicant sought a stay of his convictions for armed robbery with a firearm and forcible confinement, arguing that police assaulted him during post‑arrest questioning in violation of ss. 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown conceded that excessive force had been used by police officers during the interviews.

The court accepted that the assaults occurred but found the injuries were not serious, did not produce lasting harm, and had no impact on the fairness of the trial or the reliability of the verdict.

Applying the principles governing abuse of process and stays of proceedings, the court held that the stringent threshold for a stay was not met.

The appropriate remedy was instead a reduction in the sentence otherwise fit.