Mr. M. Friedman

This is an addendum to a trial judgment addressing a Charter breach issue that the trial judge initially failed to apply to certain charges.

The accused was charged with impaired driving, refusal to provide a breath sample, obstruction of police, breach of recognizance (two counts), simple possession of cocaine, possession of cocaine for trafficking, possession of fentanyl for trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The trial judge initially found the accused guilty on five charges but failed to apply the defence's Charter application under s. 10(b) and s. 24(2) to those charges.

Upon realizing this error during sentencing, the judge reopened the convictions to apply the Charter analysis.

The judge found that police breached the accused's right to counsel at the police station and excluded evidence on certain charges, resulting in acquittals on simple possession of cocaine, breach of recognizance for drug possession, and refusal to provide a breath sample.

The accused remained convicted on impaired driving, obstruction of police, and breach of recognizance for curfew violation.

The accused was charged with impaired driving, refusing to provide a breath sample, obstructing police, failing to comply with recognizance conditions, simple possession of cocaine, possession of cocaine for trafficking, possession of fentanyl for trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown proved impaired driving, refusal to provide breath sample, obstruction, and recognizance breaches beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the court found that police breached the accused's right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter by failing to provide a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel immediately upon arrest for the trafficking charges and by ignoring a request to contact a friend with a lawyer.

The court excluded evidence of drugs found under the police cruiser seat under s. 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in acquittals on the trafficking and proceeds charges.

The accused was convicted of impaired driving and the admitted charges.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon (knife), carrying a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, and uttering threats following an altercation in which he cut the complainant under the chin.

The central issue was whether the accused acted in self-defence.

The court found the complainant to be an unreliable witness with significant credibility issues, while the accused was found to be credible and consistent.

The court accepted the accused's evidence that he carried the knife for personal protection against the complainant, who had previously attacked him and made repeated threats.

The court found that the accused's use of the knife was a reasonable defensive response to the complainant's aggressive conduct and punch to the face.

All charges were dismissed.

The court held three voir dires to determine whether hearsay statements from three witnesses who were unavailable to testify could be admitted for the truth of their contents.

The defence sought to admit statements from Aaron Downs, Salvatore Graziano, and Idil Farah regarding an alleged assault involving the accused and a complainant.

The Crown conceded necessity for all three statements.

The court applied the principled exception to the hearsay rule, requiring proof of both necessity and threshold reliability on a balance of probabilities.

The court granted the defence application with respect to Downs' statement but denied the applications regarding Graziano's and Farah's statements.