Michelle Farquhar

The applicant sought to exclude evidence of drugs and cash found during a warrantless search of his vehicle following a high-risk takedown of his passenger, who was wanted on violent warrants.

The court found that while the initial containment of the vehicle to arrest the passenger was lawful, the continued detention of the applicant and the subsequent search of his satchels breached his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights.

The court held that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to detain the applicant for flight from police or to conduct a safety search of the vehicle after a pat-down revealed no weapons.

The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Idrisso Palmer was found guilty of possession of an unauthorized firearm and a loaded firearm.

The Crown sought a 3-year sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence, citing anti-Black racism and strict bail conditions.

The court considered sentencing principles, aggravating and mitigating factors, including Mr. Palmer's social context, lack of male role models, economic disadvantage, and prior lengthy pre-trial custody for charges that were ultimately withdrawn.

The court found a fit sentence to be two years less a day, and imposed a conditional sentence with strict conditions, emphasizing rehabilitation over incarceration given the unique circumstances.

The accused was charged with possessing a loaded handgun found during a police search of a vehicle parked at a motel.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging violations of his rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10(a) and (b).

The court found that the police arbitrarily detained the accused by parking their cruiser in a manner that psychologically prevented the vehicle from leaving, violating s. 9.

However, the court found no violations of ss. 8 or 10, as the subsequent search was justified under the Cannabis Control Act after officers smelled marijuana, and delays in providing rights to counsel were justified by officer safety.

Applying the Grant test under s. 24(2), the court declined to exclude the handgun, finding the s. 9 breach was technical and the admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was found guilty.

A 13-year-old young person pled guilty to unauthorized possession of a prohibited firearm and failing to comply with an undertaking.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted a sentence of time served (130 days) plus probation.

The court rejected the joint submission, finding that a custodial sentence was not legally available under s. 39 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act because the mere possession of the firearm did not constitute a 'violent offence' and the circumstances did not amount to an 'exceptional case'.

The young person was sentenced to 18 months of probation with ancillary orders.

The defendants were charged with various drug and firearms offences following the execution of a search warrant at a residence.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence to prove possession.

The court found the first defendant guilty of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking based on drugs found near where she was sleeping, but not guilty regarding drugs found in a common kitchen area.

The second defendant, the principal occupant, was found guilty of possessing MDMA found in her bedroom, but not guilty of possessing the cocaine.

The careless storage of a firearm charge against the second defendant was dismissed due to an evidentiary gap regarding the standard of care.

The accused, charged with second degree murder and attempted murder, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to trial delay.

The total delay from the charge to the anticipated end of trial was 47.5 months.

After deducting defence delay and delay caused by discrete exceptional circumstances, the remaining delay was 35 months and 7 days, which exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

However, because the case commenced before the release of the Jordan decision, the court applied the transitional exceptional circumstances framework.

The court found that the Crown's reliance on the previous law justified the delay, noting the Crown's efforts to push the case forward and the defence's lack of effort to expedite the proceedings prior to the trial adjournment.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual interference and sexual assault against his 12-year-old niece.

The complainant alleged that the accused touched her buttocks and digitally penetrated her while she was sleeping in the living room.

The court found the complainant's core narrative to be credible and reliable despite some minor inconsistencies.

The accused was found guilty of both charges.