Mark Edward Ertel

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, impaired operation, and operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited concentration of blood alcohol following an incident on Highway 417 on April 9, 2011.

The defence challenged the admissibility of breath readings on Charter grounds, alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) regarding reasonable grounds for arrest, failure to facilitate access to counsel due to language barriers, and failure to follow R. v. Prosper procedures when the accused changed his mind about contacting counsel.

The court found the arrest was properly justified based on the totality of circumstances, that the accused understood his rights to counsel despite speaking broken English, and that no Prosper violation occurred as the accused made an informed decision to defer contacting counsel.

The breath readings were admitted as evidence.

The appellant appealed convictions for assault with a weapon and mischief under the Criminal Code following a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The appeal argued that the trial judge improperly rejected the appellant’s evidence and misapplied the rule in Browne v. Dunn when assessing credibility.

The Crown conceded that the rule had been misapplied and that the error likely affected the credibility assessment of both the complainant and the accused.

The court held that the misapplication could have affected the outcome because the accused needed only to raise a reasonable doubt.

The convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered, after which the Crown directed that the charges be stayed under s. 579.1 of the Criminal Code.

The applicants brought a defence motion seeking exclusion of all evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant at a specified property.

In light of the Crown’s stated position and the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Rocha, the court granted the application.

The ruling excluded all evidence obtained through the execution of the search warrant.

The court indicated that more detailed reasons would be provided if requested by counsel and invited further submissions regarding the impact of the ruling on the charges and any potential trial.

The applicants brought applications pursuant to Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenging the validity of a production order directed to Telus, two Part VI wiretap authorizations, and search warrants executed in connection with Project Lancaster, an investigation into firearms trafficking and drug offences in Ottawa.

The applicants challenged the type of order used to obtain text messages, the sufficiency of grounds for the authorizations and warrants, and sought exclusion of evidence under Section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court dismissed all applications, finding that a production order was the appropriate mechanism for obtaining stored text messages, that the authorizing judges had sufficient grounds based on reliable and corroborated confidential informant information, and that the search warrants were properly issued.

The accused was charged with multiple counts relating to trafficking in cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking following undercover police operations involving text message communications.

The accused argued that he was entrapped because the undercover officer used flirtatious and sexually suggestive messages to induce him to sell cocaine.

The court applied the entrapment framework from R. v. Mack and held that the police had reasonable suspicion that the accused was engaged in drug trafficking before initiating contact.

Although the officer used sexually suggestive language to build rapport, she never promised sexual favours or rewards in exchange for drugs.

The court concluded that the accused was already engaged in drug trafficking and that the transactions were ordinary business exchanges rather than inducement by police conduct.