Human Rights - OCJ

The Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, through Chief Investigative Reporter Kevin Donovan, brought the fifth application to unseal search warrants, production orders, and Informations to Obtain (ITOs) in the ongoing investigation into the double murder of Honey and Barry Sherman.

The police agreed to unseal the first four ITOs with redactions, citing that they were at an early stage and of a more general nature.

The applicant challenged the redactions as overly cautious.

The court partially granted the application, unsealing certain medical and background information while maintaining redactions for holdback and hallmark information, potential persons of interest, motive, Apotex business information, and estate information.

The remaining eight ITOs were kept fully sealed as they were of a more focused nature and disclosure would compromise the ongoing investigation.

The accused was charged with possession of a loaded, prohibited handgun and breaches of court orders prohibiting weapon possession.

At trial, the defence brought a Charter application under section 24(2) seeking exclusion of the firearm and related evidence, alleging violations of section 10(b) (right to counsel without delay) and section 10(a) (right to be informed of reasons for arrest).

The Crown conceded a breach of section 10(b) with respect to a portion of the delay between arrest and access to counsel.

The court found serious and unjustified breaches of the right to counsel spanning approximately 4.5 hours, with particular concern regarding the deliberate failure of senior officers to record their interactions and decision-making.

The court excluded the evidence under section 24(2), finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and dangerous driving causing death following a motor vehicle collision.

This pre-trial motion addressed the admissibility of evidence obtained during the police investigation.

The court found multiple Charter violations including unlawful detention without rights advisement, compelled statements in violation of section 7 rights, unlawful arrest and breath demand, unlawful vehicle seizure without reasonable grounds, and unlawful seizure of blood samples and airbag data.

The court determined that the investigation was fundamentally flawed from its inception, with police taking investigative shortcuts that resulted in evidence being unlawfully obtained.

The court found that evidence obtained in violation of the Charter could not be relied upon to lawfully seize other evidence, rendering subsequent warranted seizures unlawful as well.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired and while his blood alcohol concentration exceeded the legal limit, with offences dating to September 1, 2017.

The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application to stay the charges for violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time.

The trial was scheduled for November 23-24, 2020.

The court found that the net delay of 567 days (18 months and 17 days) exceeded the presumptive 18-month ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court rejected the Crown's "but-for" analysis in favor of a "common sense" approach to scheduling delays and found no exceptional circumstances to justify the delay.

The charges were stayed.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, impaired operation, and operation with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg/100 mL following a high-speed chase through residential areas.

The defence brought Charter applications challenging the admissibility of breath test evidence on grounds of violations of sections 7, 8, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found a breach of section 8 (right to privacy) regarding cell toilet surveillance and excluded the breath test evidence pursuant to section 24(2).

However, the court convicted the accused on the dangerous operation and impaired operation charges based on the totality of the evidence, including observations of the accused's driving and physical condition.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration equal to or exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of blood within two hours of ceasing to operate the vehicle, contrary to section 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proved that the accused drove erratically, veering into oncoming traffic on multiple occasions.

His partner called 911 reporting suspected impairment.

Police attended and the accused was transported to the hospital.

An approved screening device test was administered en route, which the accused failed.

Formal breath tests at the hospital yielded readings of 280 milligrams.

The accused challenged the legality of the police conduct, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court rejected all Charter challenges and convicted the accused.

The accused was charged with having a blood alcohol concentration equal to or exceeding 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood within two hours after ceasing to operate a conveyance, contrary to s. 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of the roadside breath demand and alleged breaches of his Charter rights to counsel.

The court found that the police officer had reasonable suspicion to demand a roadside sample based on the totality of circumstances, including the accused's dazed appearance, slow and deliberate movements, and apparent hand-eye coordination difficulties following a serious motor vehicle accident.

The court also found no breach of the accused's s. 10(b) rights, as the accused demonstrated understanding of his rights and provided cogent responses to questioning.

The accused was found guilty as charged.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a vessel and operating a vessel with blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit contrary to section 253(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code.

The charges arose from an incident on August 4, 2018, in Saugeen Shores, Ontario, where the accused allegedly operated a powerboat erratically, colliding with other boats and a breakwall.

The court conducted a voir dire on the voluntariness of statements and heard Charter applications challenging the admissibility of evidence and seeking a stay of proceedings.

The court ruled that the accused's statements were voluntary, rejected Charter applications based on lost evidence and procedural breaches, and found reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and proper Charter compliance regarding rights to counsel.

The defendant brought a motion to stay proceedings on a charge of defrauding the public (offence dates 2013-2018), alleging a violation of his Charter right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The Crown and defence disagreed on the calculation of net delay.

The court determined that the net delay was 19 months 28 days, exceeding the presumptive ceiling of 18 months.

The Crown presented no exceptional circumstances to justify the extension.

The court granted the stay of proceedings on the consolidated count and addressed the status of remaining multi-count informations.

The defendant challenged a search warrant for a safe found in a vehicle following arrests related to a stabbing.

The defendant sought to exclude evidence obtained from the safe, arguing the warrant was invalid due to an improper warrantless search incident to arrest.

The court conducted a Garofoli review to determine whether credible evidence supported the warrant's issuance.

The court found the limited flashlight inspection of the safe was reasonable as incidental to arrest and that the Information to Obtain contained sufficient credible evidence to support the warrant.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant challenged the validity of a search warrant executed on his residence and vehicle on the grounds of a breach of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (unreasonable search and seizure).

The applicant raised three arguments: (1) the ITO failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe trafficking had occurred; (2) the ITO failed to establish reasonable grounds that evidence would be found at the residence; and (3) the warrant was facially invalid for authorizing searches of two separate independent places on a single warrant.

The court rejected all three arguments and found the warrant valid, admitting the evidence obtained from the search.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and having a blood alcohol concentration equal to or exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood within two hours of operating a motor vehicle, arising from erratic driving on Bathurst Street.

The Crown called civilian witnesses and police officers.

The accused challenged identification as the driver, the sufficiency of evidence of impairment, and raised multiple Charter violations.

The court found the accused was the driver beyond a reasonable doubt and that his breath readings exceeded the legal limit.

However, the court found insufficient evidence of impairment without expert evidence relating breath readings to impairment.

All Charter applications were dismissed.

The accused was convicted on the over-80 count and acquitted on the impaired count.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood, contrary to section 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant sought to exclude breath samples and test results under section 24(2) of the Charter, alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Charter, including claims of racial profiling.

The court found no Charter breaches.

The officer had reasonable grounds to suspect alcohol in the defendant's body based on improper parking at an LCBO, admission of prior alcohol consumption, and detection of alcohol odour.

The screening demand was lawful and made within the immediacy requirement.

No racial profiling occurred.

The defendant was properly arrested and advised of her rights.

A conviction was registered.

The accused challenged the validity of two search warrants issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act on the basis that they violated section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court conducted a Garofoli application to determine whether reasonable and probable grounds existed for the issuance of the warrants.

The accused also brought a constitutional challenge to the "Step Six" procedure and sought the appointment of amicus curiae.

The court rejected the constitutional challenge, declined to appoint amicus, and found that the warrants could have been issued based on credible, compelling, and corroborated information from a confidential informant combined with independent police investigation, including OPP wiretap evidence of firearms trafficking.

The accused was charged with Operation Over 80 and Exceed 80 following a motor vehicle stop on Highway 401.

An off-duty officer observed erratic driving and called for uniformed officers.

The off-duty officer detained the accused for 36 minutes without providing Charter rights to counsel.

When the uniformed officer arrived, an Approved Screening Device demand was made 45 minutes after the initial stop.

The accused challenged the validity of the roadside demand and the admissibility of the breath samples on Charter grounds.

The court found breaches of s. 10(b) rights due to the delay in making the roadside demand and the failure to provide a realistic opportunity to consult counsel.

The breath samples were excluded under s. 24(2).

The Exceed 80 charge was dismissed.

However, the court found the accused guilty of Operation Impaired based on the pattern of erratic driving observed prior to the stop.

The accused brought a Charter application challenging the lawfulness of his detention.

In an addendum to a previous ruling, the court reconsidered its conclusion regarding arbitrary detention under section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that although the officer was a trespasser at the point of detention, rendering the detention unlawful and thus arbitrary, the evidence would not be excluded under section 24(2) as admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The trial proceeded.

The accused was charged with voyeurism under section 162(1)(a) of the Criminal Code for allegedly recording guests in an Airbnb unit using a hidden camera in a clock radio.

The defence brought a Charter application challenging the police conduct.

The court found that police breached the accused's section 8 Charter rights by entering the apartment without a warrant, seizing the clock-camera without lawful authority, and searching the device without a warrant.

Although the subsequent search warrant was found to be valid, the court excluded all evidence obtained through the Charter breaches under section 24(2), finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute due to the cumulative pattern of police misconduct and the serious impact on the accused's privacy rights in his dwelling.

The defendant was charged with refusing to provide a suitable sample of breath to enable a proper analysis by an approved screening device at the roadside, contrary to section 320.15(1) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant did not contest the lawfulness of the demand but argued he lacked the necessary mens rea because he requested to speak to a lawyer before complying.

The court found that the Crown proved all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant's desire to consult counsel before providing a sample does not constitute a reasonable excuse for refusing an immediate demand.

The court convicted the defendant.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings based on an alleged breach of their Section 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay from arrest to the anticipated trial date was 571 days (approximately 18 months and 22 days).

After deducting defence delay of 40-41 days, the net delay was approximately 530 days (17.5 months), which fell below the presumptive ceiling of 18 months established in R. v. Jordan.

The court found that the accused failed to demonstrate meaningful steps to expedite proceedings and that the case did not take markedly longer than it should have.

The Crown was ready to proceed throughout, and the only non-defence delay was attributable to court unavailability.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant, a young person charged with historical sexual offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, brought an application to stay proceedings for unreasonable delay contrary to s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Information was sworn on June 22, 2018, and the trial was expected to conclude on April 17, 2020, approximately 22 months later—exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown conceded the delay exceeded the ceiling but argued exceptional circumstances justified the excess.

The court found that while one discrete event (the judge's change of mind regarding the applicability of s. 278.92) could be deducted, the remaining delay of 21 months still exceeded the ceiling.

The Crown's carriage of the prosecution was marked by dilatory disclosure, delayed decision-making regarding jurisdiction, and inadequate planning for foreseeable pre-trial applications.

The court concluded the Crown failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances and granted the stay.