N. Young

The defendants applied under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence, including a loaded handgun and drugs, found during a warrantless search of their vehicle following a traffic stop.

They alleged violations of their rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter, including claims of racial profiling.

The court dismissed the s. 8, s. 9, and s. 10(a) claims, finding the stop was lawful and the search was authorized under the Cannabis Control Act.

The court found moderate breaches of s. 10(b) regarding the implementation of the right to counsel.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2), as the breaches were not causally connected to the discovery of the evidence and exclusion would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The accused applied for a Rowbotham order seeking state-funded counsel under s. 7 of the Charter after Legal Aid Ontario denied funding.

The court considered whether the accused met the three-part Rowbotham test: ineligibility for Legal Aid after exhausting appeals, indigence preventing retention of counsel, and risk that the absence of counsel would compromise the right to a fair trial.

Although the court accepted that Legal Aid appeals had been exhausted and that the complexity and seriousness of the case could compromise trial fairness without counsel, it found that the accused failed to establish indigence.

The court concluded that the accused had divested himself of assets through questionable non-arm’s-length property transfers and failed to provide corroborating financial documentation.

As a result, the application for state-funded counsel was dismissed.

The applicant was convicted of sexual interference and sexual assault but successfully appealed based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel, resulting in an order for a new trial.

The applicant brought an application seeking to return to the pre-election stage to elect a trial by judge and jury and have a preliminary inquiry.

The court granted the application under section 24(1) of the Charter, finding that the lack of adequate legal representation included the initial election process, and denying a re-election would infringe the applicant's rights under sections 7 and 11(f).