Meghan Scott

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code to vacate a previous detention order on firearms charges.

The applicant argued that a material change in circumstances had occurred, including the resolution of other outstanding charges, 10 months of pre-trial custody, and a new release plan with electronic monitoring.

The Superior Court of Justice found that a material change was established.

The court was satisfied by the applicant's evidence demonstrating a commitment to abide by the strict release conditions and concluded that detention was no longer justified on secondary or tertiary grounds.

The application was granted and the applicant was released on bail.

The applicant sought a bail review after being denied interim release on charges including break and enter, possession of a loaded firearm, and possession of fentanyl.

The applicant proposed a strict house arrest plan with electronic monitoring and two sureties pledging $30,000.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the bail review, finding that the proposed plan adequately addressed the secondary ground of public safety and that the tertiary ground did not require detention, as there was no evidence the firearm was used in the commission of the offences.

Following a jury trial where the defendants were convicted of kidnapping and other offences, the Crown sought a Gardiner ruling to establish that a firearm was used during the commission of the offences.

The court reviewed the evidence, including victim testimony, photographs of injuries, and security footage.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that an operative firearm was used by a co-perpetrator to threaten and assault the victim during the kidnapping, robbery, aggravated assault, and uttering of death threats.

This finding triggers mandatory minimum sentencing provisions under the Criminal Code.

The applicant, facing 22 charges including robbery, dangerous driving, and firearm offences, sought a bail review after being detained by a justice of the peace.

He argued that his recovery from COVID-19 and delays in setting a preliminary inquiry constituted a material change in circumstances, and that the justice of the peace erred in law.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding no material change in circumstances and no errors of law.

The court further held that even with a foolproof release plan, the applicant's detention was necessary on the tertiary ground to maintain confidence in the administration of justice given the gravity of the offences and his extensive criminal record.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder and indignity to a dead body, brought a pre-trial motion to exclude evidence seized from his apartment during warranted searches, alleging multiple Charter breaches.

The police had initially made a warrantless entry into the accused's apartment under exigent circumstances after discovering a dismembered body nearby.

The court found that while looking through the mail slot and failing to provide the right to counsel upon initial detention violated the Charter, the warrantless entry itself was justified under s. 487.11 of the Criminal Code.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the cumulative effect of the Charter breaches did not warrant exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2), as the police acted in good faith, the impact on protected interests was minimal due to discoverability, and society's interest in adjudicating the serious charges on the merits was high.

The application was dismissed.

In a pre-trial ruling for a first-degree murder trial, the accused applied to exclude security video surveillance recordings obtained by police from the common areas of his apartment building.

The accused argued the warrantless seizure violated his s. 8 Charter rights.

The court dismissed the application, finding the accused had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of the 246-unit building.

The court further held that even if a breach occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter as the police acted in good faith and the evidence was highly reliable and important to the case.

The sureties argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to proceed with a bail forfeiture hearing because the certificate of default was improperly completed under s. 770(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court rejected the argument, holding that strict formal compliance with Form 33 is not required where the certificate adequately signals the default and the surrounding record clarifies the circumstances.

The certificate may be amplified by transcripts and other evidence at the forfeiture hearing.

The purpose of the document is to alert the sureties to the alleged default and trigger the hearing process, not to function as a fully particularized pleading.

Clerical imperfections in completing the certificate do not deprive the court of jurisdiction.