O'Marra J.

The applicants, charged with two counts of second-degree murder following a nightclub shooting, brought Charter applications to exclude evidence.

The police had obtained the applicants' names and contact information from their banks without a warrant, claiming exigent circumstances due to the fleeing armed suspects.

The court found a breach of section 8 of the Charter, noting the applicants had a diminished expectation of privacy in the 'tombstone' banking information.

However, applying the Grant framework under section 24(2), the court declined to exclude the evidence, finding the police acted in good faith with an honest belief in exigent circumstances and that exclusion would significantly harm the administration of justice.

The Crown sought to admit statements made by the accused following his arrest for sexual assault, while the accused brought a Charter application alleging a breach of his s. 10(b) right to counsel.

The court found that the accused's initial statements to police were voluntary and admissible.

However, during a subsequent video interview, the police failed to ensure the accused understood his right to counsel after he expressed confusion.

The court held this was a serious breach of s. 10(b) and excluded the video interview statements and a buccal swab obtained for DNA analysis under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused were charged with conspiracy to murder and commit aggravated assault, counselling to murder and commit aggravated assault, and assault with a weapon.

The charges arose from an overheard conversation where Abou Al-Rashta instructed Pirouzi to attack two individuals.

The court found insufficient evidence of a meeting of minds to support the conspiracy charges against both accused.

However, the court found Abou Al-Rashta guilty of counselling the offences, as he actively induced and encouraged Pirouzi.

Pirouzi was also found guilty of assault with a weapon for a separate incident involving a remote control.