racial profiling

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 appellant, Prosper Chenjelani, appealed his conviction for driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg in 100 ml of blood, contrary to s. 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal was based on alleged errors by the trial judge, including the rejection of evidence of racial profiling, the sufficiency of reasons, and the application of the law regarding racial profiling.

The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the trial judge’s findings and the applicable legal standards, ultimately dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction.

Saieed Hagi pled guilty to possession of a loaded firearm in breach of a firearm prohibition order while on parole for a manslaughter conviction involving a firearm.

The Crown sought a 5-year sentence emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, while the Defence argued for 4 years with credit for harsh pre-sentence incarceration conditions and social context mitigating factors.

The court balanced aggravating factors including possession of two firearms while intoxicated and on parole, against mitigating factors such as a guilty plea, significant lockdown conditions, social disadvantage, and demonstrated rehabilitation efforts.

The sentence imposed was a global 4 years minus pre-sentence custody, with ancillary orders including a lifetime firearm prohibition and DNA sample.

The court considered an application by Mustafa Elawad to exclude evidence obtained during a traffic stop and subsequent search, on the basis of breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(a) and (b) of the Charter.

The court found that the police engaged in racial profiling, that the stop was not justified by the stated reason of obscured plates, and that the subsequent search and seizure were unlawful.

The evidence of drugs and a firearm was excluded, and Mr. Elawad was acquitted of all charges.

This sentencing decision addresses the possession of a loaded restricted firearm and related offences by Chadwick Francis, who was stopped at a RIDE spot-check.

The trial focused on a racial profiling claim which was dismissed.

The judge considered the social context of systemic racism and Mr. Francis’ personal history, including his victimization by gun violence, as mitigating factors.

The decision carefully balances denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and public protection, ultimately imposing a conditional sentence order (CSO) of two years less one day with strict conditions, including GPS monitoring and probation, rather than incarceration.

The case highlights the complexity of sentencing in firearm possession cases involving racialized offenders and the evolving role of social context evidence.

The appellant appealed convictions for firearms possession, arguing the vehicle search was unlawful under the Liquor Licence Act (LLA), the traffic stop was a pretext, and the evidence did not prove possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the search lawful under the LLA, rejecting the pretext argument (including a new racial profiling claim), and affirming the trial judge's finding of possession based on ample evidence.

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 defendant, Anushan Uthayakumar, faced charges including careless storage of a firearm and possession of a loaded restricted firearm after a traffic stop and subsequent discovery of a weapon.

The defence sought to exclude the firearm, alleging breaches of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter, specifically arguing racial profiling in the selection of the surveillance location, a pretextual traffic stop, and an unlawful search of the vehicle.

The court dismissed all Charter applications, finding no evidence of racial profiling, that the traffic stop was a legitimate sobriety check, and that the cannabis discovery leading to the search was lawful.

Consequently, the defendant was found guilty on all counts.

The accused, Ashton Bell, faced serious firearms charges and brought a Charter application under s. 24(2) to exclude evidence (a firearm) alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b), primarily due to racial profiling during a traffic stop, search, and arrest.

The Crown conceded a s. 10(b) breach (delay in access to counsel) but argued for admission of evidence.

The court found no racial profiling or s. 8/9 breaches, but confirmed the s. 10(b) breach.

Applying the Grant test, the court determined that admitting the firearm would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, given the less serious nature of the breach, minimal impact on the accused, and high societal interest in adjudicating serious firearms offences.

The evidence was admitted, leading to conviction on all charges.

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.

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 defendant, Dwight Dube, was charged with impaired driving and over 80.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) due to excessive force during arrest and improper implementation of the right to counsel.

The court found that police used excessive force, violating section 7 of the Charter, but found no violation of sections 8, 9, or 10(b).

Applying the Grant test, the court excluded the breath sample evidence and police observations of potential impairment, leading to an acquittal on both charges.

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.

Chadwick Francis was stopped at a RIDE spot-check where police detected a strong odour of cannabis.

After producing an opened cannabis packet, a subsequent search of his vehicle revealed a loaded handgun.

Francis challenged the lawfulness of the search and his detention, alleging racial profiling and violations of his Charter rights (sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b)).

The court found that the cannabis was not lawfully packaged for transport under the Cannabis Control Act, justifying the search.

It also determined that there was no racial profiling and that the delay in providing counsel rights was reasonable.

Francis was found guilty of four firearms-related offences.

The Durham Regional Police Services Board and Christopher Delaney appealed a Divisional Court decision that found the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's (HRTO) decisions unreasonable.

The HRTO had ruled that a settlement agreement for a second human rights application also settled a prior, undecided first application by Joseph Briggs, and subsequently cancelled a favourable decision for Briggs on the first application as an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court reversed the HRTO, finding its interpretation of the settlement unreasonable and deciding the matter itself rather than remitting it.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the HRTO's decision was unreasonable due to its narrow interpretation of the factual matrix and exclusion of relevant evidence (Form 25).

The Court of Appeal also affirmed the Divisional Court's discretion to decide the matter rather than remitting it, citing the inordinate delay and the binary nature of the issue.

The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the settlement did not cover the first application.

The defendant was charged with driving while disqualified.

The court addressed two main issues: the defendant's knowledge of the disqualification and whether the police stop and subsequent vehicle search violated sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to racial profiling.

The court found the Crown proved the defendant's knowledge of the disqualification.

However, the warrantless search of the vehicle was deemed an unreasonable search (s. 8 violation) and tainted by racial profiling.

This racial profiling was also found to have tainted the initial traffic stop (s. 9 violation).

Consequently, the evidence obtained (defendant's self-identification) was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, leading to the dismissal of the charge.

A Toronto Police officer, Christopher Hutchings, was charged with assault following an incident on a TTC bus involving a "disorderly male," Chase Richards.

The court assessed whether Officer Hutchings had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and if his use of force was reasonable, proportionate, and necessary.

The judgment relied on video evidence, expert testimony on police use of force, and witness credibility.

The court found that Officer Hutchings had objectively and subjectively reasonable grounds to arrest Mr. Richards for mischief due to his non-compliance and aggressive behaviour, which caused the bus to go out of service.

The court rejected Mr. Richards' claim of being choked, finding his actions on video inconsistent with such an event.

While acknowledging the social context of racial profiling, the court found no evidence that race influenced the officer's actions.

Officer Hutchings was found not guilty.

The applicants, Rebecca Paredes and Matthew Stewart, faced drug and firearms charges.

They brought Charter applications under sections 8, 9, and 10(b), seeking exclusion of evidence (a loaded firearm and drugs) seized incident to their arrest.

The court found that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, leading to arbitrary detention (s. 9 breach).

It also found a s. 10(b) breach for Paredes due to delayed access to counsel, but not for Stewart.

The s. 8 strip search claim for Paredes was dismissed.

Applying the R. v. Grant factors, the court concluded that the serious s. 9 breach and its significant impact on the applicants' liberty, coupled with the police conduct, warranted the exclusion of the evidence to maintain the administration of justice's reputation, despite the societal interest in a trial on the merits for serious charges.

The appellant was convicted of firearms offences following a traffic stop and arrest.

The primary issue on appeal was whether the stop and arrest were tainted by racial profiling, which would render the firearm evidence inadmissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The trial judge found Charter breaches (ss. 8 and 9) due to an arrest without reasonable and probable grounds but admitted the evidence, concluding no racial profiling because he found the officers were not "lying" about their motivations.

The Court of Appeal (majority) held that the trial judge erred in applying the test for racial profiling by focusing on whether officers deliberately lied, failing to adequately consider unconscious bias.

A new trial was ordered.

The dissenting judge argued the trial judge correctly applied the law and considered all factors.

The defendants, brothers Garret and Garnett Grant, were arrested following a traffic stop that escalated into a search for cannabis and then a firearm.

They faced charges related to unauthorized firearm possession and possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking.

Both defendants brought Charter applications alleging arbitrary detention, unreasonable searches, and breaches of their right to counsel, including racial profiling.

The court dismissed the Charter applications for arbitrary detention and unreasonable search, finding the police conduct lawful and not racially motivated.

However, it found a breach of the right to be informed of the reason for detention (s. 10(a)) due to delayed notification of drug charges.

Applying the Grant analysis, the court admitted the evidence.

On the merits, Garret Grant was found guilty of all firearm charges, while Garnett Grant was found guilty of most drug trafficking charges and simple possession of oxycodone.

Garret Grant was acquitted of all drug charges, and Garnett Grant was acquitted of one drug trafficking count.