M. McRae

The applicant, a Black man, was stopped by police for allegedly using a hand-held device while driving.

After smelling cannabis, the officers searched the applicant and his vehicle, discovering a loaded handgun and drugs.

The applicant brought a Charter motion alleging arbitrary detention and unreasonable search based on racial profiling.

The court found the initial traffic stop was lawful under the Highway Traffic Act and did not violate section 9.

However, the court concluded that the subsequent safety search was not objectively justified and was influenced by implicit racial bias, violating section 8.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the firearm and drugs under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused, charged with drug and firearms offences following a traffic stop, brought an application for the production of police records relating to the arresting officers' prior traffic stops and training materials.

The accused argued the records were relevant to an anticipated Charter challenge alleging racial profiling and an unlawful search.

The court dismissed the application, finding the records were neither first-party disclosure as they were not fruits of the investigation, nor subject to third-party production as the accused failed to establish their likely relevance beyond mere speculation.

The Crown applied for a temporary publication ban on portions of an agreed statement of fact and bail synopsis relating to an adult accused who pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

The ban was sought to protect the fair trial rights of a young person co-accused who was scheduled to be tried for second-degree murder at a later date.

The court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test and concluded that a broad ban was not necessary, as alternative measures like jury instructions and the passage of time would mitigate prejudice.

However, a limited ban was granted for evidence that could identify the young person or would be presumptively inadmissible at their trial.