Keely Duncan

The accused, facing drug trafficking charges, brought a Garofoli application to challenge the validity of a search warrant executed at his motel room.

The warrant was based on tips from three confidential informants and police surveillance of a suspected drug transaction at a nearby drive-thru.

The court granted the accused limited leave to cross-examine the police affiant.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the application, finding that the totality of the circumstances, including the informant tips and corroborating police surveillance, provided a reasonable basis for the issuing justice to authorize the warrant.

The court sentenced the accused for possession of child pornography and accessing child pornography arising from persistent internet searches and a substantial collection of illicit images and videos found across multiple computer devices.

Applying the governing sentencing principles for child pornography offences, the court held that denunciation and deterrence were primary considerations, while also weighing the offender's lack of criminal record, difficult upbringing, cognitive impairments, anxiety, and favourable rehabilitation prospects.

The court granted enhanced credit for pre-trial custody under s. 719(3.1) but refused any additional credit for bail conditions, finding they were not sufficiently stringent.

A custodial sentence of 11 months and 6 days concurrent was imposed, followed by three years of probation and ancillary orders including DNA sampling, lifetime sex offender registration, a 10-year prohibition order, and forfeiture.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, assault, and robbery arising from an incident with the complainant following the accused’s release from custody.

The complainant alleged that the accused assaulted and sexually assaulted her after she visited his apartment, while the accused testified that the sexual activity was consensual and that the dispute related to drugs and money.

Applying the credibility framework in R. v. W.(D.), the court found both the complainant and the accused to be unreliable witnesses.

Elements of the accused’s account were considered plausible and left the court with a reasonable doubt.

In light of inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence and inconclusive corroborative evidence, the Crown failed to prove the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court sentenced an offender convicted of multiple sexual assaults against three young complainants who were between six and nine years old and were entrusted to his care through a tutoring business operated from his home.

Applying the primary sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence for offences involving abuse of persons under eighteen, the court treated the offender’s position of trust, the age and vulnerability of the complainants, the grooming-like social activities, and the ongoing psychological harm as aggravating factors.

The court stayed the sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching counts under the Kienapple principle, imposed a seven-year global sentence, and granted pre-sentence custody credit at 1.5:1 for 886 days.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA order, lifetime sex offender registration, and a two-year prohibition under s. 161.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Police officers attended a known problem house to check on tenants and observed the accused flee into a bathroom upon seeing them.

The officers detained the accused and conducted a pat-down search, finding crack cocaine in his pocket.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude the evidence, alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found the investigative detention was lawful but the search violated s. 8 based on recent Supreme Court jurisprudence.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court admitted the evidence under s. 24(2) because the officers acted in good faith according to the law as it was understood at the time.