Meaghan Hourigan

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of cocaine discovered during a strip search following a traffic stop.

Police stopped a vehicle with mismatched licence plates and briefly questioned the passenger, who voluntarily provided identification that revealed he was bound by a probation order prohibiting association with persons with criminal records.

After learning the driver had a criminal record, police arrested the accused for breach of probation and discovered a hard object during a pat‑down search, leading to a strip search at the station that revealed cocaine.

The court held that the passenger was not detained during the initial roadside questioning and that brief requests for identification and relationship to the driver did not constitute detention or an unreasonable search under ss. 8 or 9 of the Charter.

The arrest and subsequent strip search were lawful and Charter‑compliant.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

Accused charged with cocaine trafficking offences sought a Rowbotham order staying proceedings pending state-funded counsel, arguing they lacked the financial means to retain counsel and required representation for a fair trial.

The court reviewed the established Rowbotham criteria requiring denial of legal aid, inability to afford counsel, and necessity of counsel for a fair trial.

The court found the first accused failed to provide credible or sufficient evidence of indigence and demonstrated access to significant income and discretionary spending inconsistent with financial hardship.

The second accused had been granted a legal aid certificate but sought funding for counsel of choice, which did not meet the Rowbotham threshold.

The court further held that the applicants failed to establish that the case involved sufficient complexity to require state-funded counsel.

The applicant sought leave to cross-examine the affiant of an Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant at a preliminary hearing (a Dawson Application).

The applicant was charged with marijuana possession, marijuana production, careless use of a firearm, and two counts of unauthorized possession of a weapon.

The applicant argued that the information in the ITO was only minimally corroborated and that the confidential source was unproven.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had not tendered extrinsic contradictory evidence, had not demonstrated facial validity issues with the ITO, and had not shown that the affiant inaccurately or unfairly presented the information.

The proposed cross-examination did not fall within the scope permitted under the Garofoli test.