Laura R. Johnson

The applicant brought a pretrial motion seeking to stay charges or exclude firearm evidence, alleging his Charter rights were violated during his arrest.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the applicant and that racial profiling played a role in the decision.

Consequently, the applicant's ss. 8 and 10(a) Charter rights were violated.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that admitting the firearm would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and excluded the evidence, though it found the applicant's police statement was voluntary.

The accused brought a pre-trial motion seeking to exclude evidence (cocaine, money, cell phones) seized incident to his arrest, arguing violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found the arresting officer's testimony unreliable and incredible, concluding that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and failed to promptly inform the accused of the reasons for his arrest.

Consequently, the search incident to arrest was unlawful.

Applying the R. v. Grant framework, the court determined that the seriousness of the Charter-infringing state conduct and the significant impact on the accused's rights warranted the exclusion of the evidence, as its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The applicant sought an urgent case conference to establish supervised access to her children and to obtain a section 30 CLRA assessment.

The court denied the urgent motion, finding that the applicant failed to meet the urgency test, particularly given the long period of no contact with the children and the lack of evidence regarding available supervisory services or assessors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court emphasized that the issues were not urgent as defined by the Notices to the Profession and lacked practical feasibility.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and reprisal.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several procedural issues.

The Tribunal amended the respondent's name to FCA Canada Inc., found the issue of deferral moot as the related union grievance was withdrawn, denied the applicant's request to add eleven individuals as personal respondents because there was no compelling reason to do so, and denied the request for early document production as premature.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a production order directing a doctor to produce clinical notes and records pertaining to the grievor's assessment and treatment following a motor vehicle accident.

The records are to be provided to union counsel, who will then provide arguably relevant copies to employer counsel, subject to strict confidentiality and use limitations.

The applicant filed human rights complaints against her employer and union, alleging discrimination in employment and vocational association on the basis of sex and disability.

The complaints stemmed from a dispute over the volume of a radio played by co-workers and alleged subsequent harassment.

Following the presentation of the applicant's case at the hearing, the respondents moved to dismiss the applications for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant presented no medical evidence of a disability and failed to show that the alleged harassment or the respondents' handling of her complaints was based on her sex.

The applications were dismissed.