Luigi Perzia

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the accused, Dustin Matthews, on a charge of having an excess of blood alcohol concentration.

The trial judge had found breaches of sections 8 (unreasonable search) and 10(b) (right to counsel) of the Charter and excluded evidence under section 24(2).

The appeal court found no section 8 breach, ruling that police had an implied invitation to knock on the garage door during a hit-and-run investigation, which was not a pretextual search.

It also found no section 10(b) breach, as the brief delay in reading rights was permissible for driving offences.

Consequently, the section 24(2) analysis was deemed unnecessary.

The appeal was granted, and a conviction was registered.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including break and enter, assault, unlawful confinement, and theft, following a home invasion of a 76-year-old woman.

The victim was tied to a chair while her home was ransacked and her vehicle and wallet were stolen.

Although the victim could not identify the intruder, the accused was found in possession of her stolen credit cards within two hours of the offence.

Applying the doctrine of recent possession, the court inferred that the accused was the intruder and found him guilty on all counts.

The defendant applied under sections 7 and 24 of the Charter to exclude the testimony of his former girlfriend, arguing that police violated her s. 10(b) right to counsel during an interrogation, which amounted to an abuse of process.

The court found that while the witness's rights may have been breached, the defendant's fair trial rights were not violated.

The court held that the police conduct did not undermine society's expectations of fairness in the administration of justice, and excluding the evidence would be more likely to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown brought an application seeking to vacate preliminary hearing dates scheduled for three separate matters, arguing that amendments to Bill C-75 restricting preliminary inquiries should apply retrospectively to cases where charges were laid before September 19, 2019.

The defendants opposed the application, contending that the amendments should apply prospectively only.

The court considered the retrospectivity of the amendments to sections 535 and 536 of the Criminal Code and ultimately followed the authoritative decision of Justice Thomas in R. v. R.S., 2019 ONSC 5497, holding that the amendments are procedural in nature and do apply retrospectively.

Consequently, the preliminary hearings were vacated as the offences charged no longer qualified for a preliminary inquiry under the new legislation.

The applicant, charged with possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, sought disclosure of the identities of two confidential informants and their production for cross-examination, or a stay of proceedings.

The defence theory was that the drugs found in the applicant's bedroom belonged to his brother, a known drug trafficker, and were planted to deflect suspicion.

The court applied the "innocence at stake" exception to informer privilege, requiring the applicant to demonstrate that the information sought was not available from any other source and that he was otherwise unable to raise a reasonable doubt.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to meet the threshold test, as there were other potential sources of evidence to support the defence theory.

The accused brought a Charter application challenging the lawfulness of a detention and search conducted by police officers executing a search warrant at a residence.

The court found that while the investigative detention was lawful, the subsequent search for officer safety was unlawful as it was conducted as a matter of routine practice without reasonable grounds to believe the officer's safety was at risk.

The court excluded the evidence obtained from the unlawful search under the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The charges were dismissed.