Police misconduct

The plaintiff, Haytham Elzayat, brought a civil action against the Toronto Police Services Board for alleged misconduct arising from his arrests and charges for assault on October 17, 2016, and April 15, 2017.

The court found that the police officers involved acted reasonably and met the required standard of care in their investigations and arrests.

The court dismissed all claims, including those for negligent investigation, breach of Charter rights, and discrimination, and found no evidence to support the plaintiff’s allegations.

The court also addressed the limitation period and assessed damages that would have been awarded had the claim succeeded, ultimately awarding costs to the defendant.

Ricardo Gomez, a Toronto Police Service officer, pleaded guilty to breach of trust for providing confidential information to a member of the public.

The court imposed a six-month conditional sentence, declining probation or a discharge.

The decision details the facts, Gomez’s background, letters of support, and the legal framework for sentencing, including aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court emphasized the seriousness of breach of trust by police officers and the need for denunciation and deterrence, finding a discharge contrary to the public interest.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed Wesley James’s appeal in part, setting aside his convictions for possession for the purpose of trafficking fentanyl and crack cocaine due to Charter breaches and police misconduct, and entering acquittals on those charges.

The court found that the trial judge erred in the Grant analysis by failing to properly consider the seriousness and cumulative effect of the Charter breaches and police dishonesty, and by not conducting a final balancing of the Grant factors.

The conviction for trafficking crack cocaine was upheld as the verdict was not unreasonable on the evidence.

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 court granted a stay of proceedings in a prosecution for historical sexual assault and physical assault, finding multiple and egregious breaches of the accused’s rights under section 7 of the Charter.

The breaches included lack of jurisdiction by military police, bias and improper involvement in family law proceedings, failure to preserve and disclose evidence, and destruction of relevant evidence.

The court found that the cumulative effect of these breaches undermined the integrity of the justice system and that no remedy short of a stay would suffice.

The appellant was convicted of multiple firearms-related offences.

He appealed his convictions, arguing that the trial judge erred in her s. 24(2) Charter analysis by refusing to exclude evidence (firearm and ammunition) despite a s. 10(b) right to counsel breach.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in downplaying the seriousness of the breach and its impact on the accused's Charter rights, as the police completely denied access to counsel for a prolonged period due to carelessness.

Applying the R. v. Grant factors afresh, the Court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appeal was allowed, convictions set aside, and acquittals entered on all counts.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence (two firearms) found during a vehicle stop and search.

They alleged racial profiling, lack of grounds for the Cannabis Control Act (CCA) search, and violations of their s. 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights.

The court found no racial profiling and determined that the strong smell of fresh marijuana provided valid grounds for the CCA search.

While s. 10(a) rights were not breached, the court found a serious violation of the accused's s. 10(b) rights due to "lackadaisical" police conduct at the station, resulting in significant delays in facilitating access to counsel of choice.

However, applying the Grant factors under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the long-term repute of the justice system would be better served by admitting the evidence, given its reliability, the minimal impact of the breach on the accused (who eventually spoke to counsel), and society's strong interest in adjudicating serious charges on their merits.

The application for exclusion of evidence was dismissed.

The accused, Ruxsan Arulrajah, was charged with robbery.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of an inculpatory utterance made by the accused to police.

The court found the utterance inadmissible on two grounds: it was not proven voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt, and it was obtained in violation of the accused's s. 10(b) Charter rights (right to counsel) due to both informational and implementational breaches.

Applying the Grant test, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

As the Crown chose to call no further evidence after the ruling, the charge was dismissed, resulting in an acquittal for the accused.

This criminal trial addressed charges of impaired operation, over 80 mg, flight from police, and dangerous operation.

The impaired operation charge was dismissed by the Crown due to insufficient evidence.

The court excluded breath test results for the over 80 mg charge under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding a serious and systemic s. 10(b) breach by the Ottawa Police Service regarding the immediacy of the right to counsel, despite a weak impact on the accused's rights.

The accused was found guilty of flight from a peace officer and dangerous operation, based on his actions in a parking garage, including ignoring police commands and driving dangerously.

The appellant, Kevin Nguyen, appealed his convictions for various firearm-related offences.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's Charter ruling regarding an unlawful arrest, an illegal apartment freeze, and the validity of a subsequent search warrant.

The application judge had excluded drugs found on the appellant but admitted a handgun and cash found in his apartment.

The appellant argued errors in the s. 24(2) Charter analysis (failure to consider overall police conduct and D.C. Worth's lack of good faith), and errors in the Garofoli ruling (permitting amplification of the Information to Obtain a search warrant and failing to exercise residual discretion to set aside the warrant).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's decisions on all grounds.

The accused, Bowen Fan, was charged with impaired operation and operating a motor vehicle with excess alcohol.

The Crown conceded the impaired operation charge.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging breaches of Mr. Fan's s. 10(b) rights due to language barriers and denial of access to a third party to obtain counsel information.

The court found significant informational and implementational breaches of s. 10(b) due to the police's failure to ensure Mr. Fan understood his rights, provide an interpreter, or allow him to contact a friend for lawyer details.

Applying the Grant test under s. 24(2), the court found the seriousness and impact of the breaches outweighed society's interest in adjudication on the merits, leading to the exclusion of breath test evidence and dismissal of both charges.

This case involves a criminal trial where the accused, Dwight Whittaker, faced charges related to offences against peace officers.

The Crown proceeded by summary conviction.

During the trial, a Charter motion was heard seeking a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging violations of the accused's s. 7 and 12 rights.

The court found that while the accused was guilty of the charges arising from the courtroom incident, the conduct of a court officer, Officer Dicks, in the holding cells prior to the courtroom incident was unlawful and egregious, constituting clear violations of the accused's s. 7 rights.

Specifically, Officer Dicks used excessive force, including punching the accused and standing on him, which was deemed humiliating and unlawful.

Considering the egregious nature of the Charter violations and the racial context (Black accused, White officer), the court found that a stay of proceedings was the only appropriate remedy to distance the administration of justice from such conduct.

All charges were stayed.

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.

The accused, Jason Ronald Martin, faced multiple charges including impaired driving, drug possession, and probation breaches.

The defence brought Charter applications alleging breaches of ss. 8 (unreasonable search due to a routine strip search and inadequate record-keeping), 9 (arbitrary detention due to delay in bail hearing), and 10(a) and (b) (right to be informed of reasons for arrest and right to counsel).

The court found breaches of s. 8 and ss. 10(a) and (b), noting the police's routine strip search policy and their failure to promptly and clearly inform the accused of all charges.

The s. 9 application was dismissed as the delay in bringing the accused before a justice was deemed reasonable given the circumstances.

Applying the Grant test under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court determined that the serious nature of the breaches and their significant impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests warranted the exclusion of all evidence.

Consequently, all charges against the accused were dismissed.

The accused, John, David, and Jonathan Pham, brought a Charter application under section 11(b) for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to anticipated end of trial was nearly 28 months, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court.

The Crown argued that the delay was due to an "exceptional circumstance" related to their post-ruling investigation into surveillance evidence.

The court found that the Crown's decision to investigate and introduce new evidence after a section 8 ruling (which found police misrepresentations) was not a reasonably unforeseen or unavoidable event, as the issues were central to the litigation from the outset.

Therefore, the delay was not attributable to an exceptional circumstance, and the presumptive ceiling for delay was exceeded without justification.

This is a ruling on stage one of a third-party records application brought by the defence in a criminal proceeding.

The accused sought records from the Toronto Police Service's Professional Standards Unit concerning an investigation into the unauthorized public release of an in-car camera video of the accused.

The court found that the defence discharged its onus on stage one, establishing that the records were likely relevant to issues at trial, including potential animus of arresting officers and the evidentiary foundation for a Charter application.

The court ordered the records to be produced for judicial review to determine stage two of the application.

The defendant, Logan Cloer, was tried on charges of impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

He sought a stay of proceedings under sections 7 and 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that the arresting officer assaulted him after his arrest.

The court found that the defendant's Charter rights were violated due to the officer's impulsive and inappropriate use of force.

However, the court declined to grant a stay of proceedings, deeming it a disproportionate remedy given the minor injury and the officer's conduct not being as egregious as in other cited cases.

Instead, the court imposed a reduced sentence, finding the defendant guilty of the offences, fining him one dollar, and ordering a one-year driving prohibition.

The accused, Duval Smith, challenged the validity of CDSA search warrants, seeking to exclude seized evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his s. 8 rights.

The challenge was sub-facial, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) was misleading due to affiant carelessness, including erroneous source history, improper investigative file maintenance, and inadequate presentation of previous warrant information.

The court found the affiant careless but not intentionally misleading, and that despite the deficiencies, the ITO, when excised and amplified, still provided reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant's issuance based on compelling and corroborated confidential source information and surveillance.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed its second finding (unsubstantiated) regarding a police misconduct complaint by the Stanleys and ordered a third investigation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the quashing of the OIPRD's second decision, but on the ground that the OIPRD was functus officio and lacked statutory or common law authority to reconsider its initial substantiated finding.

The Court set aside the Divisional Court's order for a third investigation, restoring the OIPRD's original decision to refer the matter for a disciplinary hearing, while noting that the OIPRD could now apply its newly amended rules for reconsideration.

This is a criminal appeal concerning convictions for possession of child pornography, making child pornography, and sexual assault.

The appellant argued that police breached his Charter rights (ss. 8 and 10(b)) through delayed access to counsel, an unlawful strip search, an unauthorized bedpan vigil, unlawful detention, a warrantless apartment entry, and invalid search warrants for electronic devices.

The Court of Appeal found multiple serious Charter breaches, including a reckless disregard for fundamental constitutional rights and significant impact on privacy interests (body, home, devices).

The court re-evaluated the s. 24(2) Grant analysis, concluding that the evidence obtained through these breaches should have been excluded.

The trial judge's attempt to sever the breaches and stay lesser charges was deemed an error in principle, as the police conduct tainted all evidence.

The appeal was allowed, convictions set aside, and acquittals entered.