Investigative detention

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 Ontario Court of Justice considered a drink-driving case involving Keith Maiato, focusing on alleged Charter violations under sections 8, 9, and 10(a).

The court analyzed whether the police had reasonable grounds for arrest and whether the Defendant was properly informed of the reasons for detention.

The court found no breach of s. 10(a) or s. 9, concluding that the arrest was lawful and supported by reasonable grounds.

However, the court found the Defendant’s admissions to the Qualified Technician were not voluntary due to the manner in which the breath demand was explained, leading to exclusion of those admissions.

Without the Defendant’s admissions, the prosecution failed to prove identity and impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittal.

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 defendant, Anson Keung, was charged with firearms offences after a loaded handgun was found during a pat-down search following an arrest based on mistaken identity.

The defence brought a Charter application, arguing arbitrary detention (s. 9) and unlawful search (s. 8), seeking exclusion of the evidence under ss. 24(1) and 24(2).

The court found that the police's actions, including the investigative detention and pat-down search, were reasonable given the dynamic situation and concerns for officer safety, particularly due to the actual suspect's history with firearms.

The Charter application was dismissed, and the defendant was found guilty on all three charges.

The accused, Noah Spencer, was charged with five firearms offences and three drug trafficking offences.

He brought a Charter application (ss. 8, 9, 10(b)) seeking exclusion of evidence, alleging unlawful detention, search, and racial profiling by police.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the police acted lawfully based on reasonable suspicion and officer safety concerns, and explicitly rejecting claims of racial profiling.

The court found Spencer guilty of all firearms and drug trafficking charges, concluding he was in physical possession of the items and engaged in a joint venture with a co-accused.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sought leave to appeal his sentence for offences related to the possession of a loaded handgun.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's determination of reasonable suspicion for investigative detention or the subsequent pat-down search of a satchel.

While the trial judge erred in considering discoverability under the first branch of the Grant analysis for a s. 10(b) Charter breach, the Court found this error did not impact the s. 24(2) analysis, as the evidence would still be admissible.

The Court granted leave to appeal sentence but dismissed the sentence appeal, agreeing that the trial judge erred in relying on a confidential informant tip for an aggravating factor but concluding this error did not impact the sentence imposed, which was at the low end of the range.

The appellant was convicted of firearms offences and appealed, alleging breaches of his Charter rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10(b), and seeking exclusion of evidence.

The trial judge found a minor s. 10(b) breach but no ss. 8 or 9 violations, and declined to exclude the handgun evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the police had reasonable grounds for the appellant's detention and search, and that any Charter breach was minor and did not warrant exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2).

The appeal was dismissed.

Omari Rodney was charged with drug and firearm offences after fleeing police and discarding a loaded handgun.

The defence argued that his Charter rights under sections 8 and 9 were violated, seeking exclusion of the evidence.

The court found that Rodney was not psychologically detained before he fled and discarded the gun, and that his subsequent arrest for firearm possession was lawful.

The search incident to arrest was also deemed lawful.

Even if Charter violations occurred, the court determined the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) due to the seriousness of the offences and the public interest in a trial on the merits.

Rodney was found guilty of all charges.

The defendant, Christopher Judge, was charged with multiple Criminal Code offenses including assaulting a peace officer, failing to stop at the scene of an accident, failing to stop while pursued by police, and dangerous operation of a conveyance, following an incident involving a drug complaint, police chase, physical altercation, and vehicle collisions.

The defendant brought Charter motions alleging arbitrary detention (s. 9) and excessive force (s. 7).

The court dismissed the Charter motions, finding the investigative detention justified and the force used by the officer necessary given the defendant's resistance.

The court found the defendant guilty on all five remaining charges, rejecting his testimony as incredible and unreliable.

The defendants applied to exclude evidence (a gun and their clothing) obtained following their detention and arrest, alleging breaches of their Charter rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found the initial investigative detention lawful, but identified breaches of s. 10(b) due to the police's failure to promptly advise of the right to counsel upon detention and for subsequent delays in facilitating access to counsel at the police station.

However, the court found no s. 8 breach regarding the gun seizure, concluding the accused had no privacy expectation, had abandoned the gun, and the search was conducted with valid consent.

Applying the s. 24(2) Grant test, the court weighed the moderate seriousness of the Charter breaches against their minimal impact on the accused's rights and society's strong interest in adjudicating serious armed robbery cases on their merits.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed, and all evidence was found admissible.

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.

This is an appeal from convictions for firearm offences.

The appellants argued Charter breaches (s. 8, 9, 10(b)) and unreasonable verdicts based on misapprehension of evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no Charter breaches, disagreeing with the trial judge's s. 8 finding.

However, it allowed both conviction appeals, finding that the trial judge's conclusion regarding an "exchange of gunfire" was based on a fundamental misapprehension of evidence, and that the use of cellphone photographs to infer possession was improper due to lack of similarity and risk of propensity reasoning.

Ahmed's convictions were quashed and acquittals entered, while Yusuf's convictions were quashed and a new trial ordered.

The accused, Khanij Chopra, was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance, "over 80," and possession of a controlled substance.

The defense filed a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b), seeking to exclude breath samples and the controlled substance.

The Crown sought to admit the accused's utterances.

The court found significant Charter breaches due to prolonged unlawful detention and denial of the right to counsel, leading to the exclusion of the breath samples and the controlled substance under section 24(2) of the Charter.

Consequently, the accused was found not guilty of the "over 80" and possession charges.

For the impaired operation charge, the court found reasonable doubt regarding impairment at the time police located the accused, leading to an acquittal on that count as well.

The appellant, Feisal Noor, appealed his conviction on firearms-related charges, arguing that his s. 9 Charter right against arbitrary detention and s. 8 Charter right against unreasonable search and seizure were violated.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the police had reasonable suspicion for an investigative detention and that the handgun was found in plain view during a lawful struggle, thus dismissing the Charter application and affirming the conviction.

The applicant, charged with firearm offences, brought a Charter application alleging unlawful detention, unreasonable search, and excessive force by police, seeking exclusion of evidence (a firearm) or a stay of proceedings.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the police had objectively reasonable grounds for investigative detention to prevent interference with a search warrant execution.

It was determined that no search occurred as the firearm fell from the applicant during a lawful struggle to gain control.

The court also found that rights to counsel were provided as soon as reasonable, and the force used (a "football tackle" and subsequent strikes) was objectively reasonable given the immediate danger posed by an unsecured firearm and the applicant's resistance.

The defendant was charged with driving with excess blood alcohol.

He brought a Charter application alleging arbitrary detention (s. 9) and violation of his right to counsel (s. 10(b)).

The court dismissed both Charter claims, finding that the initial stop was a lawful investigative detention and that the police were reasonably diligent in facilitating his right to counsel, despite his lack of diligence in pursuing alternatives.

Consequently, the breath test results were admitted, and the defendant was found guilty.

Shemar Nelson was charged with possession of cocaine for trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime following a police operation.

The defence sought to exclude evidence based on alleged breaches of Charter sections 8, 9, and 10(b), and argued a lack of continuity for the seized items.

The court found no Charter breaches, ruling that the investigative detention, safety search of a satchel, and delay in advising counsel were justified by officer safety concerns and the circumstances.

The court also found the subsequent overholding of the accused was not arbitrary.

However, the court found significant discrepancies in the chain of custody and documentation of the seized evidence, including differing descriptions of items, lack of photographs, and items appearing/disappearing from the property attributed to the accused.

These issues created a reasonable doubt regarding the continuity of the cocaine and cash.

Consequently, the accused was found not guilty on all charges.

This criminal case involved a motion to exclude evidence obtained by police during an impaired driving investigation.

The accused was investigated on his private driveway without a warrant.

The court examined whether the police had lawful authority for the detention, specifically considering if a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity existed, as the statutory authority under the Highway Traffic Act for random sobriety checks does not extend to private property.

Applying the Debot factors for assessing tip reliability (compelling, credible, corroborated) and the Chehil standard for reasonable suspicion, the court found the unsourced and uncorroborated tip insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion.

Consequently, a Charter violation occurred, and the breath samples and observations made on private property were excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, consistent with the principles in R. v. McColman.

This appeal concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained following an unlawful arrest and unreasonable search, and the reasonableness of the conviction for drug and firearm offences.

Police, after a search warrant was denied, arrested the accused as a suspected drug buyer.

A search incident to arrest yielded drugs and a firearm.

The trial judge found Charter breaches (ss. 8 and 9) but admitted the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding police conduct negligent but not egregious.

The accused was convicted.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's s. 24(2) analysis, finding sufficient grounds for investigative detention, no improper disregard of the justice of the peace's decision, and that negligent conduct does not automatically lead to exclusion.

The Court also found the conviction reasonable based on circumstantial evidence of the accused's knowledge of the contraband.

The appellant was convicted of possessing MDMA for the purpose of trafficking and possessing proceeds of crime.

He appealed his conviction, arguing that his Charter rights under ss. 8 and 9 were violated due to unlawful continued detention and search.

The trial judge found the initial detention and pat-down lawful, but the search of the appellant's knapsack unlawful, admitting the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant's continued detention was lawful, emphasizing the totality of circumstances and the reasonable suspicion held by police in a dangerous situation.

Consequently, the appeal against conviction was dismissed, though a mandatory victim fine surcharge was quashed.