Erin Lainevool

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.