Maria Carroccia

The accused was charged with multiple offences arising from a home invasion and robbery.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the recognition evidence of two victims who were familiar with the accused.

The court found the identification evidence unreliable due to discrepancies between the victims' trial testimony and their initial statements to police, as well as the brief time they had to observe the perpetrators.

Furthermore, an alibi witness raised a reasonable doubt as to the accused's whereabouts at the time of the robbery.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused brought a Charter application under s. 8 and s. 24(2) to exclude evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant at a trailer residence.

The court found the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained sufficient grounds based on informant tips to justify the search of the trailer.

However, the court ruled that the police lacked lawful authority to search a locked shed located behind the trailer, as it fell outside the curtilage of the residence described in the warrant.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that admitting the evidence from the shed would bring the administration of justice into disrepute due to the seriousness of the police conduct in failing to obtain a separate warrant.

The evidence found in the shed was excluded.

The applicants, who were charged with conspiracy to traffic in a controlled substance, brought applications under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence obtained from wiretap and dialed number recorder (DNR) authorizations.

They argued that the authorizations violated their s. 8 Charter rights because the informations to obtain (ITOs) contained false, misleading, and unconstitutionally obtained information, and that the issuing judge for the DNRs demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court found that while some information in the ITOs had to be excised, including jail visitor logs obtained in breach of s. 8, the remaining evidence was sufficient to support the issuance of the authorizations.

The court also found no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applications to exclude the evidence were dismissed.

The accused, charged with drug trafficking conspiracy, brought applications for a stay of proceedings alleging their s. 11(b) Charter rights to a trial within a reasonable time were infringed.

The total delay was 41.5 months.

Applying the Jordan framework, the court deducted defence delay and delay caused by discrete exceptional circumstances, including a judge's conflict of interest and an unexpectedly lengthy preliminary hearing.

The remaining delay fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The court also found that the transitional exceptional circumstance applied, as the parties reasonably relied on the prior Morin framework.

The applications for a stay were dismissed.

The offender, an immigration lawyer, was convicted of fabricating a fraudulent refugee claim for an undercover police officer posing as a client.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of three to five years, while the defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized the paramount principles of denunciation and general deterrence, noting that the offender's status as a lawyer and the systemic impact of immigration fraud aggravated the offences.

Despite mitigating factors including the offender's mental health struggles and loss of her legal career, the court found a conditional sentence inappropriate and imposed a concurrent sentence of 12 months' incarceration on each count.

The accused challenged the legality of their arrests and searches conducted incident to arrest following execution of a search warrant for an apartment suspected of drug trafficking.

The police relied primarily on information from two confidential informants, one of whom was not of proven reliability, and failed to disclose material information in the information to obtain (ITO), including criminal histories and financial motivations of the sources.

The court found the tips lacked independent corroboration and did not meet the constitutional threshold of reasonable grounds for arrest or entry into a residence.

As a result, the arrests and searches violated s. 8 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court held the Charter breaches were serious and systemic and excluded the seized evidence under s. 24(2).