Leonard Hochberg

The defendant was previously found in civil contempt for dishonesty, concealing assets, and breaching a Mareva injunction.

Having already served a 90-day sentence for a prior contempt finding, the court considered the appropriate sanction for this subsequent contempt.

Emphasizing that civil contempt aims at coercion rather than punishment, and noting the defendant's expressed remorse and ongoing counselling, the court declined to impose further immediate incarceration.

Instead, the court ordered the defendant to continue weekly counselling for two months and pay a $10,000 fine within 60 days, failing which a 90-day term of imprisonment would be imposed.

The defendant, Tang Hien Quanh, brought a pre-trial Charter application seeking to exclude evidence obtained from his arrest and subsequent searches of his person and a Toyota RAV4.

The defendant argued violations of his s. 9 (arbitrary detention) and s. 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) Charter rights.

The court found no s. 9 or s. 8 Charter breaches, concluding that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and that the searches were lawful, including the RAV4 search conducted under a valid warrant.

Even if breaches occurred, the court determined that the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, balancing the seriousness of state conduct, the impact on the defendant's rights, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The Crown applied for a bail review of a release order for the respondent, who was charged with trafficking significant quantities of cocaine and fentanyl.

The Crown argued the Justice of the Peace failed to properly consider the tertiary ground for detention under s. 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court of Justice agreed, finding that the Justice of the Peace failed to explain why detention was not required given the extremely strong Crown case, the gravity of the offences, and the public safety risks associated with fentanyl.

The application was allowed, the release order was vacated, and the respondent was ordered detained in custody.

The accused was charged with possession of marijuana, crack cocaine, and MDMA for the purpose of trafficking after police discovered the drugs in a locked briefcase during a vehicle search following arrest for possession of a marijuana cigarette.

The accused sought exclusion of the drugs under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter, arguing the police unlawfully searched a locked briefcase without a warrant.

The court found the officers credible and accepted their evidence that a strong odour of fresh marijuana emanated from the vehicle and the briefcase, giving them a reasonable basis to search it as an incident to arrest.

Relying on authorities such as Cloutier v. Langlois, R. v. Caslake, and R. v. Zucatti, the court held that common law powers of search incident to arrest extend to forcibly opening a locked briefcase where the search is reasonably connected to the arrest.

No Charter breach occurred and the drug evidence was admitted.