Erec Rolfe

The defendant applied under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence seized from his car and home pursuant to search warrants.

The defendant argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained misrepresentations and omitted material facts, specifically a failed undercover drug buy.

The court found the affiant's misrepresentation of surveillance events was egregious and not in good faith.

After excising the inaccurate information and amplifying the ITO with the omitted facts, the court concluded there were insufficient grounds to issue the warrants, resulting in a s. 8 Charter breach.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence due to the seriousness of the police conduct and the significant impact on the defendant's privacy interests.

The offender was convicted of aggravated assault and breach of probation after severely injuring a man visiting the mother of the offender's child.

The Crown sought 8 to 10 years, while the defence sought 4 to 6 years.

The court imposed a sentence of 6.5 years for the aggravated assault.

The court also awarded 3 years and 2 months of pre-sentence custody credit, which included 14 months of enhanced credit under the Duncan framework due to the harsh conditions of the 426 days the offender spent in segregation.

The applicant pleaded guilty to robbery and firearm offences and awaited sentencing.

He brought a constitutional challenge against the bail misconduct exclusion in s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code, which restricts pre-sentence custody credit to a 1:1 ratio for offenders whose bail was cancelled due to misconduct.

The applicant argued the provision violated s. 7 of the Charter.

The court found that the provision engages the liberty interest and is overbroad, as it captures individuals whose misconduct does not render them a threat to public safety.

The Crown conceded the infringement could not be saved under s. 1.

The court declared the bail misconduct prong of s. 719(3.1) of no force and effect.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault as a party to a robbery and sentenced to an effective term of five and one-half years.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred by capping pre-sentence custody credit at 1.5 days without considering the harsh lockdown conditions he endured, and by imposing a longer sentence than his co-accused.

The Court of Appeal agreed the trial judge erred in law regarding the cap on credit for harsh conditions, but declined to grant enhanced credit due to a lack of evidence showing an adverse impact on the appellant.

The court also found no error regarding parity, noting the co-accused's guilty plea.

The appeal was allowed only to correct a 23-day calculation error in the pre-sentence credit.

The appellant appealed his convictions for several offences against his wife, including assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, and dangerous driving.

The primary issue was the trial judge's admission of the complainant's videotaped police statement under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, as she claimed memory loss at trial.

The Court of Appeal upheld the admission of the statement and the trial judge's credibility findings.

However, the Court found the conviction for dangerous driving unreasonable due to insufficient evidence regarding the manner of driving, quashing that conviction and entering an acquittal.

The remaining convictions were upheld.

The appellant was pulled over for driving with a suspended license.

The police officer called a tow truck and conducted an 'inventory search' of the vehicle, discovering marijuana in the trunk.

The trial judge found the search reasonable and admitted the evidence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the officer had no statutory or common law authority to conduct the inventory search, resulting in a breach of section 8 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the Court excluded the evidence under section 24(2) due to the seriousness of the state misconduct and the significant impact on the appellant's Charter rights.

The appeal was allowed and an acquittal entered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and the resulting 18-month sentence.

The Crown's case at trial relied entirely on circumstantial forensic evidence, including the presence of the appellant's DNA on the complainant's underwear.

The appeal court found the trial judge's verdict was unreasonable, as he drew impermissible inferences not supported by the evidence and failed to provide sufficient reasons explaining his credibility findings and rejection of the appellant's exculpatory statement.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant lacked sufficient reliable information from confidential informants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if some information was excised, the ITO as a whole provided a sufficient basis for the warrant to issue due to independent corroboration of the informants' tips regarding the location and the individuals involved in drug trafficking.

As the warrant was valid, the court did not need to address the appellant's arguments under sections 8 and 24(2) of the Charter.