Investigative detention

This criminal trial involved a Charter application to exclude evidence seized from the defendant's vehicle following an arrest and detention related to a robbery.

The defendant argued that the initial arrest of a passenger and his own detention were unlawful, rendering the subsequent vehicle search and warrant invalid.

The court found that the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the passenger's arrest and the defendant's investigative detention, and that the warrantless search of the vehicle was a lawful search incident to arrest.

Consequently, the Charter application was dismissed.

The defendant was found guilty of multiple firearm and drug trafficking charges, but not guilty of trafficking fentanyl, instead being convicted of simple possession of fentanyl.

The accused brought Charter motions (ss. 7, 10(a), 10(b)) to exclude drug and money evidence in a trial for possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court found no s. 7 violation regarding police body-worn camera (BWC) muting or late activation, as no evidence was "lost" and no prejudice was demonstrated.

However, the court found s. 10(a) and 10(b) violations due to delayed and incomplete advisement of rights upon detention and arrest.

Applying the s. 24(2) Grant analysis, the court determined that the evidence should not be excluded, weighing the seriousness of the breaches (moderate, good faith, fluid situation) against the minimal impact on the accused's Charter interests (no incriminating statements, evidence discoverable) and society's strong interest in adjudicating serious drug offences on their merits.

The motions to exclude evidence were dismissed, and the accused was found guilty on all counts.

The appellant, Mark Cameron, appealed his conviction for break and enter, firearm offences, and cocaine possession, arguing several Charter violations related to his detention, arrest, and search.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's Charter ruling.

The court upheld the lawfulness of taking keys during investigative detention, the sufficiency of information provided, the reasonable and probable grounds for arrest based on cumulative circumstances, the lawfulness of the incidental search, and the justified delay in advising the right to counsel due to officer safety concerns.

Yaqub Jama was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol.

He argued that the Crown failed to prove he was the driver and that his Charter rights (ss. 8, 9, 10(b)) were violated, seeking exclusion of evidence.

The court found the Crown proved identity and impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, and that no Charter rights were infringed.

The court dismissed the Charter application and found Mr. Jama guilty of both charges, staying the impaired driving charge under the Kienapple principle.

The appellant, David Griffith, appealed his convictions for possession for the purposes of trafficking and possessing proceeds of crime, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence obtained in breach of his Charter rights (ss. 8, 9, 10(b)).

The trial judge found breaches but admitted the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, applying the *Grant* analysis.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in the *Grant* analysis, specifically regarding the lawfulness of the pat-down search incident to investigative detention and the application of discoverability.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, facing firearms charges, brought a Charter application alleging violations of his ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) rights due to racial profiling during a police search and detention.

The court found that the safety search and subsequent search of his person, belongings, and vehicle were unlawful and tainted by unconscious racial bias, constituting breaches of ss. 8 and 9.

While the initial 10(b) rights during the Cannabis Control Act investigation were suspended due to brief roadside detention, the post-arrest delay in providing access to counsel was an unreasonable breach of s. 10(b).

Applying the Grant factors, the court concluded that admitting the firearm would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, particularly given the serious nature of the racial profiling and the systemic issues it represents.

The firearm was excluded.

The appellant, Ersan Buakasa, appealed his conviction for firearm-related offences, arguing that the gun and ammunition found in his car should have been excluded as evidence due to violations of his Charter rights (ss. 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b)).

The trial judge had found the warrantless search of the car justified as a stand-alone safety search, and while finding breaches of ss. 10(a) and (b), did not exclude the evidence under s. 24(2).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the search was a lawful and justified safety search.

The court affirmed that the police officer had reasonable grounds to believe there was an imminent threat to public safety, justifying the search, and that the evidence should not be excluded even if there were Charter breaches.

The applicant, Shaun Krawiec, brought a pretrial application to exclude evidence, specifically a handgun, observations of officers, and his identification, from his trial for possessing a loaded prohibited firearm.

The application was based on alleged violations of his Charter rights (ss. 8, 9, 10(b)) during his detention, arrest, questioning, and search by police.

The Crown conceded breaches of s. 8 (unjustified pat-down search) and s. 10(b) (failure to fully inform of right to counsel).

The court found the initial encounter constituted a detention but was not arbitrary.

The second detention was also found not arbitrary.

Applying the Grant analysis under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court weighed the seriousness of the police misconduct, the impact on the accused's Charter interests, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The court found the police conduct was not serious, the impact on the applicant's rights was not severe, and the truth-seeking function favored admission.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused, Jeremy Menary, faced criminal charges related to the possession of a loaded handgun, cash, and various drugs found during his arrest.

He brought a Charter application to exclude all evidence under section 24(2), alleging violations of his sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) rights.

The defence argued that the arrest for impaired driving was a pretext to justify an unlawful search.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding no violations.

It held that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused for impaired driving, which lawfully preceded the search.

The court also found that the brief pre-arrest detention was justified under section 216(1) of the Highway Traffic Act for investigating sobriety and vehicle authorization, thus not triggering immediate section 10 Charter rights.

The appellants, Daye, Isaac, and Saunders, appealed their drug-related convictions.

Isaac also sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals from conviction, finding no errors in the trial judge's rulings regarding Charter breaches (s. 10(b), s. 9, s. 11(b)), refusal to permit cross-examination of the affiant, or the issuance of search warrants.

The court also found Saunders' conviction for constructive possession reasonable.

However, Isaac was granted leave to appeal his sentence, and his six-year global sentence was reduced to four years, as the trial judge failed to adequately consider his de facto guilty plea.

The accused, Pengxiang Wang, was charged with impaired care and control of a motor vehicle and having over 80 mg of alcohol in his blood.

The defence challenged the admissibility of evidence, alleging breaches of Charter rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b), primarily related to arbitrary detention, unlawful search and seizure, and delays in informing him of rights and providing access to counsel in Mandarin.

The court found no Charter breaches, determining that police had reasonable grounds for detention and arrest, and that Mr. Wang understood his rights despite a language barrier, with officers taking reasonable steps to provide a Mandarin interpreter and access to duty counsel without delay.

Consequently, the evidence was admitted, and the accused was found guilty on both counts.

The accused, Faysal Adow, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence (drugs) seized following his arrest for impaired care and control and subsequent arrest for possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The court found that the initial arrest for impaired care and control was unlawful due to a lack of reasonable and probable grounds.

Consequently, the subsequent search of the vehicle, which led to the discovery of drugs, was an unreasonable search in violation of section 8 of the Charter.

The court also found violations of section 10(b) of the Charter for delayed provision of rights to counsel.

Applying the s. 24(2) analysis, the court determined that the seriousness of the state conduct and the impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests outweighed society's interest in the adjudication on the merits, leading to the exclusion of the evidence and a finding of not guilty on all counts.

Kafi Ali was charged with multiple firearms and drug-related offences.

He brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his rights under sections 8 (unreasonable search) and 9 (arbitrary detention), seeking the exclusion of incriminating evidence under section 24(2).

The court found no Charter breaches, determining that the investigative detention was based on reasonable suspicion and was not racially motivated, and the subsequent arrest and search were lawful.

The defence conceded the elements of most offences if the Charter application failed, but disputed the charge of possession of property obtained by crime.

The court ultimately found Mr. Ali guilty of all charges, including possession of property obtained by crime, concluding that the Crown had proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was charged with multiple drug and firearm offences following his detention and arrest on Lawrence Avenue East in Scarborough.

The Crown's case relied entirely on evidence obtained during the detention and subsequent search of the defendant's satchel.

The defendant brought a Charter application challenging the lawfulness of his detention, arrest, and search.

The court found that the plain-clothes officer's testimony regarding observing a hand-to-hand drug transaction was not credible and was contradicted by CCTV evidence, making it physically impossible for the officer to have witnessed what he claimed.

This rendered the detention arbitrary and unlawful, violating the defendant's section 9 Charter rights.

The search of the satchel, being incident to an unlawful arrest, violated section 8 rights.

The court found no violation of section 10 rights.

Under section 24(2), the court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of the Charter breaches, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Without the excluded evidence, the Crown could not prove its case, resulting in acquittals on all counts.

The plaintiff, Dale James, brought a motion for summary judgment against the Peel Regional Police Services Board and four police officers, alleging unlawful arrest, detention, harassment, and Charter breaches.

The claims stemmed from an arrest for breach of recognizance based on outdated CPIC information and a subsequent investigative detention.

The defendants denied liability, asserting the arrest was lawful and the detention justified.

The court, applying the principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin, found that there were genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly concerning the officers' knowledge regarding the recognizance, the reasonableness of the investigative detention, and allegations of racial profiling.

Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the matter was directed to proceed to trial.

This decision addresses a blended voir dire concerning the voluntariness of statements made to police and alleged Charter violations (ss. 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b)) during the investigative detention of two accused, Anderson and Rhoden, following a vehicle stop linked to a shooting.

The court found that while initial detention and some searches were lawful, the detention became arbitrary after two hours (4:46 a.m.), and certain statements by Anderson were involuntary due to police inducement or trickery.

Consequently, evidence obtained after 4:46 a.m., Anderson's confessions of his real name, his videotaped statement to Det. Cobor, and evidence from the unlawful trunk search were excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Early statements and the initial false name provided by Anderson were deemed admissible.

The plaintiff, Luke Stewart, sued the Toronto Police Services Board for alleged violations of his Charter rights (freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, arbitrary detention, unreasonable search and seizure) during the 2010 G20 summit.

Stewart was briefly detained and his backpack searched after he breached a police perimeter at Allan Gardens, which had been established with a condition of entry requiring bag inspections for weapons due to security concerns.

The court found that the police acted lawfully and reasonably under the Trespass to Property Act and their common law powers to maintain public safety.

It concluded that Stewart's Charter rights were not infringed, and even if they were, such infringements were reasonable and demonstrably justified in the unique circumstances of the G20 protest demonstrations.

The action was dismissed.

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 appellant, Velle Chanmany, appealed his conviction for breaching a recognizance condition prohibiting cell phone possession.

The trial judge found a s. 8 Charter violation but admitted the evidence under s. 24(2).

On appeal, the court found no s. 8 or s. 9 Charter violation regarding arbitrary detention or unreasonable search for identification, but a serious s. 10(b) Charter violation for failing to immediately advise the appellant of his right to counsel upon investigative detention.

Applying the s. 24(2) Grant test, the court concluded that the deliberate nature of the Charter breach and its significant impact on the appellant's rights outweighed society's interest in the reliable evidence, leading to its exclusion.

The appeal was allowed, conviction set aside, and an acquittal entered.

Joseph Andrews was charged with possession of cocaine, marijuana, and psilocybin for the purpose of trafficking.

He brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized under search warrants, alleging violations of ss. 8, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the search warrants valid and any other breaches minor and not warranting exclusion.

Following the Charter application, the trial proceeded, and the court found Andrews guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all counts based on circumstantial evidence of knowledge and control of the drugs found in his truck and a storage unit.