E. McNamara

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 applicant, Michael Francis, brought a motion for severance from his co-accused, Diane Campbell, in a joint criminal proceeding.

Francis, who had been in custody since February 2024, argued that significant prejudice would result from delays caused by Campbell's failure to secure legal representation.

The Crown and Campbell opposed the severance, citing concerns about inconsistent verdicts and the compellability of Campbell as a witness.

The court, applying the factors for severance outlined in R. v. Last, found that the prejudice to Francis, particularly his prolonged detention, outweighed the potential prejudice to the Crown and Campbell or the administration of justice.

The motion for severance was granted.

Three young persons, aged 15 at the time of offences, pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon and sexual assault with a weapon arising from locker room incidents at an elite private school in fall 2018.

One of the three also pleaded guilty to making child pornography.

The court imposed community-based sentences of two years probation with conditions, 30 hours community service, and weapons prohibitions.

The sentencing decision extensively examined the school's bullying and hazing culture as contextual factors, the diminished moral culpability of youth, and the rehabilitative potential of the offenders.

The court rejected the Crown's request for custody, finding that community dispositions with targeted therapeutic interventions were appropriate.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by drugs.

The Crown sought to call a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) to give opinion evidence regarding the accused's impairment.

The court ruled that no formal voir dire under the Mohan test is required for DRE evidence.

The officer's opinion is admissible under s. 254(3.1) of the Criminal Code provided the officer is certified as required by regulation.

The opinion must be limited to the prescribed evaluation tests and procedures, or alternatively may be admitted as lay opinion evidence under the compendious statement of facts exception.