Michael Edward Webster

This decision addresses a pre-trial application by two accused, Nicole Fife and Leonida Pilliatis, seeking to exclude evidence obtained by police, alleging breaches of their Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms rights.

The court found that while the initial detention of both accused was lawful, Ms. Fife's Charter rights were breached by the police failing to promptly inform her of the reason for detention and her right to counsel, and by interrogating her after she invoked her right to counsel.

Mr. Pilliatis's Charter rights were not breached.

Applying the R. v. Grant test, the court excluded the evidence (drugs and statements) against Ms. Fife due to the seriousness and impact of the Charter breaches, but found the evidence admissible against Mr. Pilliatis.

The applicant, Jeremy McDermott, charged with robbery and weapons offences, sought to exclude evidence (seized items, informal utterances, and formal statement) under ss. 10(b) and 24(2) of the Charter, alleging a breach of his right to counsel.

The court found that while the police properly informed McDermott of his rights at the scene, there was an inordinate and unexplained delay of over two hours at the police station in facilitating his access to duty counsel.

This delay constituted a breach of his s. 10(b) Charter rights.

Applying the s. 24(2) Grant factors, the court determined that the police conduct was not deliberate or systemic, and the weapons and spontaneous utterances were not causally or temporally connected to the breach, thus admissible.

However, the formal video statement, being self-incriminating evidence obtained after a significant denial of the right to counsel, was excluded as its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision determining whether the accused should be committed to stand trial on first-degree murder or second-degree murder charges.

The Crown alleged that the accused planned and deliberately murdered the victim by shooting him in the head.

The Crown's primary evidence was surveillance video showing the accused entering the victim's apartment with a gun pointed at the victim's back.

The defence conceded sufficient evidence existed for second-degree murder but contested first-degree murder.

The court found that while the surveillance video evidence of the gun was significant, when considered in the context of all evidence—including the accused allowing the victim to leave the apartment briefly, the absence of evidence of animus between the parties, and the lack of evidence of a struggle—the evidence did not support a reasonable inference of planning and deliberation required for first-degree murder.

The court discharged the accused on first-degree murder but committed him to stand trial on second-degree murder.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit of 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging that police violated his right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by failing to inform him immediately of his right to counsel and by failing to facilitate his access to counsel at the first reasonable opportunity.

The court found that the police breached both the informational and implementational duties under section 10(b).

The court excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute given the seriousness of the state conduct and the officer's ongoing ignorance of fundamental constitutional obligations.

The United States of America sought the extradition of Osayi Edison Omoruyi on charges related to an international fraud scheme.

The Attorney General of Canada applied for a committal for prosecution under the Extradition Act, alleging Omoruyi participated in inducing victims to send funds to Nigeria, representing the Canadian offence of possession of property obtained by crime.

The defense challenged identification and the fungible nature of money.

The court, acting as an extradition judge with a limited screening function, found sufficient admissible evidence to establish a prima facie case for committal, including strong circumstantial evidence linking Omoruyi to the fraudulent transfers.

Omoruyi was committed into custody to await surrender.

Following a jury conviction for trafficking in crack cocaine, possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime, the court considered an appropriate sentence for a street-level transaction involving a very small quantity of drugs.

The offender had a prior criminal record but no previous drug convictions and had reportedly overcome earlier heroin addiction through treatment programs.

The court weighed aggravating factors including trafficking in a vulnerable neighbourhood and the harmful nature of crack cocaine against mitigating factors such as the small quantity involved, the absence of recent criminal activity, and evidence of rehabilitation.

Applying the sentencing principles of denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and parity under the Criminal Code, the court concluded that a conditional sentence was appropriate.

A conditional sentence of 12 months with a period of house arrest followed by probation was imposed.