Joseph Bloomenfeld

The accused were arrested after police conducted a high-risk takedown of a parked vehicle based on an uncorroborated confidential informant tip alleging cocaine was inside.

Officers arrested the occupants at gunpoint and searched the vehicle, discovering cocaine and a loaded prohibited firearm.

The court held the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest or search, as the tip was vague, the source’s credibility was not established, and there was no meaningful corroboration.

The warrantless arrest and search breached the accused’s rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Applying the s. 24(2) framework from Grant, the court found the police conduct deliberate and serious and excluded the evidence, resulting in acquittals.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario sought to revoke the respondent's liquor licence following a police search of the premises.

The search uncovered an illegal handgun with an obliterated serial number in a basement office, as well as a hidden holster attached under the service bar.

The licensee admitted to separate violations for serving free alcohol and possessing liquor not purchased under licence.

The Board found that the basement office was part of the licensed premises and that the presence of the illegal handgun and holster constituted violations of the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations, as they afforded reasonable grounds for the belief that the business would not be carried out in accordance with the law.

The Board requested written submissions on disposition.

The licensee requested a hearing regarding a notice of proposed order by the Director to revoke his standardbred and thoroughbred owner licenses.

The Administration presented wiretap and documentary evidence connecting the licensee to an illegal sports betting operation.

The licensee did not testify to rebut the evidence.

The Commission found reasonable grounds to believe the licensee would not act in accordance with the law, honesty, or integrity, and ordered the revocation of his licenses.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction appeal court decision that stayed proceedings against the respondent for domestic assault due to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal found that while the appeal judge erred by factoring personal opinions about domestic assault into the analysis, the stay was justified based on the trial judge's strong findings of actual prejudice and institutional delay bordering on the constitutionally unacceptable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the stay but allowed the appeal with respect to costs, finding no basis for the costs order against the Crown.

The appellants were charged with conspiracy to commit extortion and related offences.

Following their committal, their trial was delayed for almost two years, primarily due to institutional problems and a lack of resources in the judicial district.

The appellants moved for a stay of proceedings, arguing their right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter had been infringed.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the delay was clearly excessive and unreasonable, establishing a framework for assessing s. 11(b) claims that considers the length of delay, explanation for delay, waiver, and prejudice to the accused.

The appeal was allowed and a stay of proceedings was directed.