resisting arrest

This decision addresses a Charter application concerning a 95-minute delay in implementing Mr. Mohamed’s s. 10(b) right to counsel following his arrest for impaired driving and related firearms offences.

The court found a breach of the right to counsel due to the delay, primarily caused by the arresting officer’s failure to arrange alternative transport to the station.

However, the evidence of the firearm, ammunition, and breath samples was admitted under s. 24(2) of the Charter after a balancing of factors, given the minor impact on the accused’s rights and the strong public interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.

The court acquitted Mr. Mohamed on the firearms-related charges due to insufficient evidence linking him to the firearm but convicted him on impaired driving and over-80 charges based on reliable breathalyzer evidence.

This decision addresses a Charter application in a drink-driving and resisting arrest case, focusing on alleged violations of ss. 8, 9, and 10(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court analyzed whether the police had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and breath demand, the lawfulness of police presence on private property under the implied license doctrine, and the adequacy and timeliness of informing the accused of the reasons for detention.

The judge found no Charter breaches, concluding the police acted reasonably and lawfully, and dismissed the application to exclude breath evidence.

Courtney Dennis was found guilty of importing four kilograms of high-purity cocaine and resisting arrest.

The Crown sought a 12-year sentence, while the defence requested a conditional sentence or, alternatively, six years.

The court found Dennis to be a principal in the importation scheme, not merely a courier, and that he threatened the couriers.

The judge considered the seriousness of the offence, the offender's extensive criminal history (including prior drug trafficking and firearm convictions), and the significant mitigation due to four years of restrictive house arrest bail.

The court imposed a total sentence of 11 years: 10.5 years for importation and 6 months consecutive for resisting arrest, along with ancillary orders.

The accused, Dominic Mignac, was charged with seven counts, including aggravated assault, assault causing bodily harm, attempted murder, and resisting arrest, following a stabbing incident at a Burger King.

The court found the accused guilty of assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, aggravated assault, and resisting arrest.

However, the charges of attempted murder, uttering a death threat, and carrying a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace were dismissed due to reasonable doubt regarding the specific intent to kill and the purpose of carrying the knife.

The defence of self-defence was rejected as the accused's actions were not deemed a reasonable or proportional response to any perceived threat, particularly after the victim had disengaged.

Police officers Paul Fyke and Jeffrey Smith were jointly charged with assault causing bodily harm following an altercation with Mario Maurice Baptiste Jr. during an attempted arrest for theft.

The court found that Constable Smith's initial arrest for theft lacked reasonable and probable grounds, making his use of force unlawful.

However, Constable Fyke's subsequent involvement was justified as he had reasonable grounds to arrest Mr. Baptiste for assaulting a peace officer or resisting arrest.

The court acquitted Constable Fyke, finding the Crown failed to prove his force was excessive.

Constable Smith was acquitted of assault causing bodily harm but found guilty of the lesser included offence of assault, as the Crown failed to prove his force caused the specific bodily harm alleged.

The accused faced multiple Criminal Code and Provincial Offences Act charges arising from an incident during the "Rolling Thunder" event in Ottawa.

Charges included dangerous operation of a conveyance, flight from police, failing to stop after an accident, resisting arrest, refusing a breath demand, and breaching release conditions.

The court found the accused guilty of dangerous operation, flight from police, resisting arrest, refusing a breath demand, and breaching a geographical release condition.

The accused was found not guilty of failing to stop after an accident and breaching a release condition related to participating in "Freedom Convoy" events, as the court found "Rolling Thunder" to be a distinct event.

Provincial offence charges for driving without an ignition interlock device and without insurance were dismissed, while charges for failing to obey police directions and having open liquor in a vehicle resulted in convictions.

Courtney Dennis was charged with importing cocaine and resisting arrest.

The Crown alleged Dennis knew the suitcases contained cocaine, not cash, which Dennis denied, claiming he was importing cash for his cousin.

The court admitted evidence of Dennis's prior drug dealing to prove knowledge and motive, applying principles of discreditable conduct evidence.

The judge found Dennis's testimony regarding his cousin and his unawareness of a suitcase switch unbelievable.

For the resisting arrest charge, the court concluded Dennis knew the individuals were police officers despite his denial.

Dennis was found guilty on both counts.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his sentence for dangerous operation, resisting arrest, breach of probation, and breach of a release order.

The Crown conceded that the sentencing judge erred by imposing a sentence exceeding the joint submission without inviting further submissions.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal and to admit fresh evidence demonstrating the appellant's significant rehabilitation efforts.

The sentence was reduced to time served, while the 12-month driving prohibition was upheld as fit.

The defendant was convicted after trial of dangerous driving, assault on a police officer, and resisting arrest following a traffic stop.

The defendant pulled away from police while an officer was trapped between the driver's door and the vehicle, accelerating dangerously and forcing officers to discharge their firearms.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence (reduced from 24 months to account for bail conditions) followed by two years of probation, rather than incarceration, balancing the serious nature of the offences against the defendant's youth, first-offender status, and strong rehabilitation prospects.

The sentence included house arrest for nine months, curfew for three months, a driving prohibition, counselling requirements, and an essay assignment about a fallen officer.

The defendant pleaded guilty to five Criminal Code offences arising from a series of incidents on September 7-8, 2018.

The defendant stole a relative's pickup truck and engaged in a prolonged dangerous driving incident on Highway 10 in Grey County, repeatedly ramming a vehicle driven by Ms. A. and her two passengers.

After the victims escaped to a gas station, the defendant led police on a high-speed chase across three counties, evading multiple police services, driving at speeds up to 161 km/h in an 80 km/h zone, and deliberately ramming a police cruiser.

The defendant was sentenced to 12 months in custody (after 9 months pre-sentence custody credit), a three-year driving prohibition, three years probation with treatment conditions, and a five-year weapons prohibition.

The accused was charged with causing a disturbance by fighting in a public place, resisting a peace officer in the execution of his duty, and assault.

The trial spanned two days.

The Crown withdrew the assault charge.

The accused testified in his own defence, denying the essential elements of the remaining charges.

The court applied the W.D. analysis to assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence.

The accused was found guilty of causing a disturbance but acquitted of resisting arrest, as any resistance was fleeting and did not attract criminal liability.

The accused was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired and over the legal limit, resisting arrest, and assault with intent to resist arrest, following her arrest at a banquet hall parking lot.

The Crown alleged the accused was found behind the wheel of her vehicle after leaving a Christmas party.

The accused applied for Charter relief alleging breaches of sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Charter.

The trial judge dismissed the Charter applications but acquitted the accused on the impaired and over 80 charges, finding she had rebutted the statutory presumption of care and control and that no realistic risk of danger existed.

The accused was convicted of resisting arrest but acquitted of assault with intent to resist arrest.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with a demand to provide a breath sample under section 254(5) of the Criminal Code and resisting arrest under section 129(a) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, who had suffered catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident two years prior, including collapsed lungs and incontinence, was stopped by police on suspicion of impaired driving.

She attempted multiple times to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device but was unable to produce a suitable sample.

The accused claimed she had respiratory difficulties from her injuries and offered an alternative of providing a blood sample at a hospital.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, rejecting her evidence regarding her respiratory limitations and finding that she deliberately failed to provide a suitable sample without reasonable excuse.

The appellant appealed a sentence imposed for assault against her child and assault of a police officer for the purpose of resisting arrest.

The summary conviction appeal court judge had upheld the sentence on the basis of deference to the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal found that deference was not owed because the conviction appeal was allowed on the assault charges, which were the sole focus of sentencing submissions, and the trial judge provided no reasons for the assault police charge.

The Court allowed the appeal and substituted a conditional discharge with a three-year probationary period, which had already been served in full.

The defendant was charged with four counts arising from an altercation with police on August 28, 2016: two counts of assault with intent to resist lawful arrest, one count of resisting arrest, and one count of obstructing a police officer.

The Crown alleged the police lawfully entered the defendant's home in response to a 911 call reporting a domestic dispute and that the defendant assaulted and resisted the officers.

The defendant argued the police exceeded their lawful authority by forcibly entering his home without a warrant and without reasonable grounds to believe anyone's life or safety was in danger.

The court found the police did not have lawful authority to enter the home and acquitted the defendant on all counts.

The accused was charged with impaired driving, refusing to provide a breath sample, and resisting a peace officer.

The defence admitted the actus reus of all three offences but contested mens rea.

The accused consumed three glasses of wine while taking Champix (varenicline), a smoking cessation medication, resulting in pathological intoxication characterized by extreme impairment, aggression, and memory loss.

Expert evidence established that the combination of Champix and alcohol can produce exaggerated intoxication effects at low alcohol levels.

The accused was unaware of this drug-alcohol interaction and could not reasonably have known of it.

The court found the presumption of voluntary intoxication was rebutted and acquitted the accused on all charges.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving, exceeding 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, and resisting arrest following a motor vehicle stop on June 5, 2014.

The Crown presented evidence of erratic driving, physical signs of impairment, breath test results of 180 mg/100 ml, and expert toxicology evidence.

The defence raised multiple Charter arguments and challenged the sufficiency of evidence.

The court found the defendant guilty of impaired driving but acquitted him of resisting arrest due to language barriers and lack of clarity regarding directions.

The accused was charged with five offences arising from an incident on March 8, 2012: two counts of aggravated assault against his mother and her boyfriend, one count of resisting arrest, and two counts of breach of probation.

The central issue was the credibility of the mother's testimony, which changed dramatically between her testimony as a Crown witness and her testimony as a defence witness.

The Crown's evidence established that the accused assaulted both victims.

The defence argued that the mother's injuries were caused by the boyfriend slapping her, resulting in her falling against furniture.

The court rejected the mother's defence testimony as internally inconsistent, contradicted by her own earlier statements, and incongruent with physical and forensic evidence.

The court found the accused guilty of aggravated assault against his mother, assault causing bodily harm against the boyfriend, resisting arrest, and both counts of breach of probation.

The accused was charged with assaulting a police officer engaged in the execution of his duty, assaulting three police officers with intent to resist lawful arrest, and causing a disturbance by being drunk in a public place.

The incident occurred outside a bar in Port Elgin after the accused approached police who were processing the arrest of his intoxicated co-worker.

The accused refused police requests to step back and was pushed by Sergeant Evans.

The accused then responded by pushing the officer away.

A physical altercation ensued, during which the accused resisted arrest and was tasered.

The court found the accused guilty of assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest, and causing a disturbance, but acquitted him of assaulting three officers with intent to resist arrest.

The appellants appealed convictions for resisting arrest and assaulting peace officers following a police response to a 9‑1‑1 call reporting a domestic disturbance.

They argued the police lacked lawful authority to enter their apartment and used excessive force during the arrest.

The appellate court reviewed the trial judge’s credibility findings and the legal framework governing warrantless entry in response to emergency calls.

Applying the principles from R. v. Godoy, the court held that exigent circumstances justified police entry to ensure the safety of occupants.

The trial judge’s acceptance of the police evidence and findings that reasonable force was used disclosed no palpable and overriding error.