Nicholas Wansbutter

The accused brought pre-trial applications alleging breaches of their rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter, seeking the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2).

The charges stemmed from a traffic stop where police discovered methamphetamine, hydromorphone, and weapons.

The court found that the police officer used the traffic stop as a pretext to investigate suspicions of drug activity and probation breaches, without legitimate highway safety concerns.

This constituted an arbitrary detention under s. 9 of the Charter, which tainted the subsequent plain view seizure and searches incident to arrest, violating s. 8.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute due to the seriousness of the police misconduct.

The evidence was excluded.

The accused brought a pre-trial application alleging a breach of his section 8 Charter rights and seeking the exclusion of evidence under section 24(2).

The accused challenged the facial validity of a search warrant issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient reliable evidence.

The court reviewed the ITO, which relied on information from a confidential informant corroborated by police surveillance.

The court found that the ITO contained sufficient credible and reliable evidence to permit the authorizing justice to find reasonable grounds to issue the warrant.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with impaired operation by drug and taking a motor vehicle without consent, brought a Rowbotham application seeking state-funded counsel.

The court applied the three-part test for a Rowbotham order.

While the applicant had been refused Legal Aid, the court found he failed to establish impecuniosity, as he had the ability to work and earn funds before trial.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicant's right to a fair trial would not be materially compromised without counsel, given the straightforward nature of the case, his cognitive abilities, and the trial judge's duty to assist an unrepresented accused.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown brought a voir dire application to determine the voluntariness of videotaped statements made by the accused during a formal police interview.

The accused had been arrested after fleeing police and was apprehended with the assistance of a police dog, resulting in significant bite injuries.

Prior to the interview, the accused experienced severe pain, sleep deprivation, and a lack of food.

The court found no police trickery or improper threats or promises.

However, considering the cumulative effect of the accused's pain, sleep deprivation, medication, and lack of food, the court had a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused's statements were voluntary.

The statements were ruled inadmissible.

The Crown brought a pretrial application to determine the voluntariness of videotaped statements made by the accused during a police interview.

The accused argued the statements were involuntary due to subtle promises, oppressive circumstances, and a breach of his right to silence under section 7 of the Charter.

The court applied the Oickle framework and found no improper threats, promises, or oppression, and that the accused had an operating mind.

The court concluded the statements were voluntary and admissible.