Michael Purcell

The appellant was convicted of three burglaries based primarily on the testimony of his accomplice.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge improperly used similar fact reasoning to bolster the accomplice's credibility, despite dismissing the Crown's similar fact application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge appropriately considered circumstantial evidence, such as the appellant's possession of a screwdriver, and the totality of the evidence without engaging in propensity reasoning.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings unless the Attorney General funded his defence at Legal Aid Ontario rates pursuant to a Rowbotham application.

Legal Aid had refused continued funding after the accused sought to change counsel.

The court accepted that counsel was essential to ensure a fair trial given the seriousness of the drug trafficking charge, the complexity of the proceedings, and the accused’s ability to participate.

After reviewing the applicant’s financial circumstances, including assistance from family members and equity in his spouse’s home, the court concluded that he lacked the means to retain counsel.

A conditional stay of proceedings was granted unless state-funded counsel was provided.

The accused was detained outside a bar after police responded to a report of a firearm.

During a prolonged investigative detention and subsequent searches, including a strip search at the police station where an officer gratuitously stood on his ankles, police found significant quantities of cocaine and crack cocaine.

A handgun was later found nearby.

The court found multiple serious breaches of the accused's ss. 7, 8, and 10 Charter rights.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the drug evidence under s. 24(2).

The accused was found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking and breach of orders, but not guilty of the firearm and proceeds of crime charges due to reasonable doubt.