Mark Miller

The accused was stopped for suspected impaired driving.

The officer determined he was not impaired but was driving with a suspended license.

The officer decided to tow the vehicle and conducted a warrantless inventory search pursuant to police policy, discovering drugs and a weapon.

The accused was arrested and a further search of the trunk revealed a sawed-off shotgun.

The accused invoked his right to counsel of choice, but police made inadequate efforts to contact the lawyer, questioned the accused, and directed him to duty counsel.

The court found serious violations of the accused's rights under ss. 8 and 10(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2), finding that admitting it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute given the systemic and serious nature of the police misconduct.

The applicant brought a pre-trial motion to exclude evidence obtained from a warrantless entry and search of his residence, arguing his s. 8 and s. 9 Charter rights were violated.

Police had entered the home without a warrant after receiving a 911 call from a witness who observed a man assaulting a woman in a vehicle that was later located in the applicant's driveway.

The court found that the applicant had a reasonable expectation of privacy, but the warrantless entry was justified under the common law exigent circumstances doctrine due to concerns for the woman's safety.

The court also held that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the applicant and that drugs found in the basement were lawfully seized in plain view.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused was tried for assault following an incident observed by an independent witness driving a truck.

The witness testified to seeing the accused repeatedly strike the female passenger and place her in a headlock while driving.

The complainant, who was the accused's girlfriend, denied the assault occurred, claiming they were merely 'play fighting'.

The court found the independent witness credible and reliable, rejected the complainant's evidence due to inconsistencies and a clear power imbalance, and found the accused guilty of assault.