Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCJ

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay was calculated at 20 months and 1 day.

After subtracting 45 days of defence delay, the net delay was 18.55 months, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court cases established by R. v. Jordan.

The court found the Crown failed to provide essential first-party disclosure in a timely manner, which impeded the defence's ability to prepare for judicial pre-trials and set trial dates.

The Crown did not establish exceptional circumstances to justify the delay.

Consequently, the application was granted, and the charges were stayed.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg/100ml.

The court found that the investigating officer breached the accused's ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) Charter rights by delaying the approved screening device (ASD) demand and failing to provide rights to counsel while waiting ten minutes for the ASD to arrive.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the breath samples under s. 24(2) of the Charter, noting the seriousness of the state conduct and inadequate police training regarding Charter rights at the roadside.

The charge was dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded restricted handgun and three counts of failing to comply with a recognizance.

The offender was bound by a weapons prohibition at the time of the offence.

The court considered the aggravating factors of carrying a loaded gun in a city and abandoning it in a house with civilians, as well as the mitigating factors of a guilty plea and family support.

A global sentence of 40 months was imposed, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused, a passenger in a vehicle stopped on a highway, brought a Charter application alleging arbitrary detention and unlawful search after police discovered methamphetamine during an inventory search of the impounded vehicle.

The court found the accused was not detained while police investigated the driver, and the request for his identification did not constitute a seizure.

The court held the police had reasonable grounds to arrest the accused for possession based on drugs found in a common area of the car, rendering the subsequent search of his person lawful.

The Charter application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg.

At trial, the accused argued his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel was violated because he did not understand the informational component of his rights due to a language barrier.

The court found objective evidence that English was not the accused's first language and that he struggled to comprehend his rights and the reason for his arrest.

Applying the Vanstaceghem test, the court held that special circumstances existed requiring the police to provide language interpretation.

The s. 10(b) breach was established, the breath evidence was excluded, and the accused was acquitted.

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking fentanyl and criminal negligence causing death after selling heroin and furanyl fentanyl to a friend who subsequently died of an overdose.

The court determined the fit sentence was 5 years for criminal negligence and 3 years concurrent for trafficking.

The sentence was reduced by 1.5 years due to the accused's cooperation with the Crown in prosecuting a co-accused.

After applying 28.5 months of enhanced pre-sentence custody credit, the accused was sentenced to an additional 13.5 months in custody, followed by 2 years of probation.

The accused, charged with possessing child pornography, brought an application to exclude a videotaped statement given to police, alleging a breach of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel.

The accused argued he had invoked his right to counsel during the interview and the police failed to facilitate contact.

The court found that the accused's statements were ambiguous and did not amount to an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel.

Furthermore, the accused was not reasonably diligent in exercising his right.

The application was dismissed and the statement was ruled admissible.

The accused was charged with 'Over 80' and impaired driving after his truck collided with a pole.

The trial judge found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused for impaired driving due to the officer's unreliable and contradictory evidence, resulting in a breach of section 8 of the Charter.

The court also found a breach of section 10(b) because the police refused to allow the accused to call his lawyer at the roadside despite having his phone and the opportunity to do so.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2).

Without the breath readings, and finding the toxicologist's report insufficient, the court concluded the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed all charges.

The applicants, charged with tax evasion under the Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act, brought a Charter motion alleging breaches of their sections 7 and 8 rights.

They argued that a CRA auditor improperly used civil audit powers to gather evidence for a criminal investigation.

The court applied the Jarvis predominant purpose test and found the auditor's focus remained on civil tax liability until the file was referred to criminal investigations.

The court did find a section 8 breach because the search warrant did not explicitly authorize a thorough search of seized electronic data storage units.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court admitted the evidence under section 24(2), concluding the breach was minor, the officers acted in good faith, and there is a strong societal interest in adjudicating the serious allegations on their merits.

The accused was a passenger in a vehicle driven by his former romantic partner.

During an argument, the accused opened the passenger door while the vehicle was moving, grabbed the steering wheel, and pulled the emergency brake.

This caused the driver to lose control and collide with an oncoming vehicle.

The court found the accused's testimony not credible and accepted the driver's evidence.

The court held that a passenger who briefly assumes control of a vehicle by grabbing the steering wheel and emergency brake is operating the vehicle and can be found guilty of dangerous driving.

The accused was found guilty.

The Crown sought to commit the accused to stand trial following a preliminary inquiry on charges including conspiracy to commit assault, aggravated assault, sexual assault, and breach of recognizance.

The court applied the Sheppard test to determine if there was sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury properly instructed could return a verdict of guilty.

Finding that the circumstantial evidence could reasonably support an inference of guilt, the court committed both accused to stand trial on all contested charges.

The accused was charged with uttering threats to cause death, uttering threats to burn property, and criminal harassment against his former romantic partner.

The court applied the W.D. test to assess credibility, finding the accused's testimony unbelievable and the complainant generally credible.

The charge of uttering a death threat in a hotel room was dismissed due to reasonable doubt arising from the complainant's intoxication.

However, the court found the accused guilty of threatening to blow up the complainant's house and criminal harassment, based on a series of intimidating text messages and a photograph of firearms sent to the complainant.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with an excess blood alcohol concentration.

At trial, the accused brought Charter applications alleging violations of his rights under ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10(b).

The accused argued that the police failed to accommodate his limited English comprehension, failed to facilitate his right to counsel by not allowing him to speak to a friend, and arbitrarily detained him for seven hours after breath testing.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the accused sufficiently understood his rights, the police made reasonable efforts to contact his friend for a lawyer's name before the accused spoke to duty counsel, and the continued detention was justified given the accused's high blood alcohol level and inability to care for himself.

The accused, charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug, brought a motion for disclosure of the Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) rolling log.

The Crown argued that recent amendments to the Criminal Code (Bill C-46) repealed the provision relied upon in previous case law to permit disclosure, creating an absolute prohibition under the new section 320.36.

The court conducted a statutory interpretation analysis and concluded that section 320.36 does not create an absolute prohibition, as it contains an exception for the enforcement of the Act.

The court held that the appellate precedent mandating disclosure of DRE rolling logs remains applicable under the new legislative regime.

The disclosure application was granted.

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample.

Following his arrest, the police delayed his right to counsel, questioned him about a knife found during a search incident to arrest, and subjected him to a strip search based on the discovery of the knife and marijuana.

The court found that the accused's rights under ss. 8 and 10(b) of the Charter were violated.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the admission of the refusal would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The evidence was excluded and the charge was dismissed.

The offender was convicted of aggravated assault against his domestic partner after punching her once in the face, breaking her nose and orbital bone.

The assault occurred after the victim repeatedly attacked the offender, and the court found the single punch began as self-defence but was excessive.

The court weighed the aggravating factor of domestic violence against significant mitigating factors, including the offender's lack of a criminal record, his history of volunteer work, and the unusual circumstances of the offence.

A suspended sentence with probation and 100 hours of community service was imposed.

The accused was charged with historical sexual offences against the complainant, who was a young child at the time of the alleged incidents in 2000.

The accused, who was a youth at the time, denied the allegations.

The court applied the W.D. framework to assess credibility.

Although the court found the complainant's testimony compelling and did not believe the accused's denial, it concluded that the accused's evidence still left a reasonable doubt.

The charges were dismissed.

The applicants, five co-accused in a complex drug trafficking prosecution, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable trial delay.

The anticipated delay was approximately 26 months, exceeding the 18-month ceiling for provincial court trials.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the case was 'particularly complex' under the Jordan framework due to voluminous disclosure (over 75,000 pages), multiple judicial authorizations, and the nature of the joint prosecution.

The court also found that the Crown had developed and followed a concrete plan to minimize delay.

The accused pleaded guilty to criminal harassment and attempting to obstruct justice against his former intimate partner.

While on probation for a similar offence against a different victim, the accused repeatedly contacted the complainant, sending hundreds of texts and calls.

He later attempted to have the complainant sign a recantation letter to have the charges withdrawn, threatening to expose details of their relationship if she refused.

The court emphasized denunciation and specific deterrence given the accused's history of similar offences and breaches of court orders.

The accused was sentenced to a global term of 10 months' incarceration (162 days remaining after pre-sentence credit) and 18 months' probation.

The accused pleaded guilty to ten offences committed between January and April 2016, including four counts of driving while prohibited, three counts of breach of recognizance, possession of stolen property, obstruction of a peace officer, and possession of marijuana.

The accused had an extensive criminal history with prior convictions for driving while disqualified, flight from police, dangerous driving, and numerous breaches of probation.

A Gladue report was prepared and a sentencing circle was held.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence with strict conditions including home confinement for the first 12 months, recognizing the accused's Aboriginal background, systemic disadvantages, and demonstrated prospect of rehabilitation through his relationship and commitment to a rehabilitation plan.