Erin Lainevool

The accused, charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized during a vehicle search.

The police had stopped the vehicle and arrested the accused based on an anonymous tip that he was transporting drugs.

The court found that the tip was compelling, the informant was credible based on past interactions, and the police corroborated the information before the arrest.

The court held that the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and that the subsequent search was a lawful search incident to arrest.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death after his truck collided with a snowmobile driven by his cousin on a rural road.

The Crown alleged the accused and the deceased were engaged in a race.

The court found that the accused was driving below the speed limit, had abandoned any thought of a race due to poor traction, and took immediate evasive action when he unexpectedly encountered the deceased stopped in the middle of the road.

The court concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's driving was objectively dangerous or a marked departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent driver.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with sexual interference and sexual assault of his young son.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the child, who disclosed the alleged abuse to his mother.

The trial judge found the child believable but noted significant reliability concerns, including a lack of detail and a tendency to guess or make up answers.

Although the judge did not believe the accused's denials and suspected he had committed the offences, the reliability issues with the child's evidence left the court with a reasonable doubt.

The charges were dismissed.

The Crown appealed acquittals on two assault counts arising from incidents at a bar involving an on-duty police officer and two complainants with whom he had prior relationships.

The trial judge found that although some touching occurred, there was no intent to assault and alternatively applied the de minimis doctrine.

The appellate court held that the trial judge erred in law by requiring a specific intent to assault rather than the statutory requirement of intentional application of force without consent under s. 265(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The court also found error in applying the de minimis principle to conduct involving intentional non-consensual touching, particularly given the respondent’s position of authority.

The acquittals on the two counts were set aside and a new trial was ordered before a different judge.

The accused, charged with drug offences, brought a pre-trial Charter application seeking to exclude drugs seized from his person and residence, as well as his inculpatory statements.

He argued that the warrantless search of his home violated s. 8, his consent was coerced by the unlawful detention of his daughter (s. 9), and his statements were involuntary.

The court found the arrest and search incident to arrest were lawful.

The court also held the daughter's detention was based on reasonable grounds and the accused's consent to search his home was voluntary and informed.

The application was dismissed and the evidence admitted.