A. Bond

This was a standalone costs endorsement following a motion to impose a discovery plan and resolve disputes over relevance and proportionality of document production categories.

The moving party obtained the principal relief on the underlying motion and sought partial indemnity costs, while the responding party argued for no costs or a substantially reduced amount and also sought costs of an adjournment.

Applying the court's broad discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rules 57.01, 1.04(1.1), and 39.02(4)(b), the court found the moving party was substantially more successful but reduced its claim for divided success, unreasonable expense, and unnecessary travel-related cross-examination costs.

Costs were fixed at $30,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable within 30 days.

The accused, a passenger in a vehicle stopped on a highway, brought a Charter application alleging arbitrary detention and unlawful search after police discovered methamphetamine during an inventory search of the impounded vehicle.

The court found the accused was not detained while police investigated the driver, and the request for his identification did not constitute a seizure.

The court held the police had reasonable grounds to arrest the accused for possession based on drugs found in a common area of the car, rendering the subsequent search of his person lawful.

The Charter application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample for an approved screening device (ASD) test.

The Crown alleged the refusal occurred without reasonable excuse under section 254(2)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging violation of his right to retain and instruct counsel.

The officer advised the accused of his right to counsel due to an anticipated delay in the ASD's arrival, but failed to provide complete information about the right and interrupted the accused's attempt to contact counsel by requesting an insurance slip.

The court found the officer breached the accused's section 10(b) Charter rights by failing to fully inform him of his right to counsel and by failing to hold off from eliciting further evidence while the accused was attempting to exercise that right.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused were charged with possession of cocaine and cannabis marijuana, possession of a prohibited weapon, and firearm-related offences arising from items seized during the execution of search warrants.

The accused challenged the validity of the search warrants under section 8 of the Charter and the accused Olsson also challenged her arrest under section 9 of the Charter.

The court found that the Information to Obtain contained sufficient credible and reliable evidence to support the issuance of the warrants, establishing both spatial and temporal nexus between the items sought and the place to be searched.

The court also found that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest Olsson.

Both Charter applications were dismissed.

The accused applied to exclude evidence of a handgun, magazine, and balaclava found in the basement bulkhead of his mother's residence during a police search for his brother, a parole violator.

The police obtained verbal consent from the mother to search the home.

The accused argued his section 8 Charter rights were violated as he had exclusive use of the basement and did not consent.

The court found the mother had the authority to consent to the search of the entire residence, including the common areas of the basement, and the accused had no expectation of privacy in the bulkhead.

The application was dismissed and the evidence was ruled admissible.