Human Rights - ONCJ

The defendant brought a Charter application to exclude a loaded handgun discovered during a warrantless search of his apartment.

The defendant alleged violations of sections 8 and 10(a) of the Charter.

The court found that the defendant's mother, who was a tenant, gave valid consent to a protective visual search of the apartment conducted by Sergeant Wallbank.

The court also found that the search was justified as a safety search under common law authority to protect life and ensure scene safety.

The court concluded that no Charter violations occurred and dismissed the application to exclude the evidence.

The accused was charged with impaired operation and having a blood alcohol level above the legal limit.

A citizen called 911 reporting dangerous driving, and police observed the vehicle swerving between lanes, nearly striking a parked bus.

Upon stopping the vehicle, the officer detected a strong odour of alcohol and observed signs of impairment.

The defence challenged the arrest and detention under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter, and disputed the Crown's proof of impairment.

The court found reasonable grounds for arrest, no arbitrary detention, and no breach of the right to counsel despite language barriers.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, with the second count stayed under the Kienapple rule.

The defendant was charged with assaulting her six-month-old son on December 3, 2017, in Beamsville, Ontario.

The Crown's case relied entirely on statements made by the defendant to police during interviews in December 2017 and March 2018.

The defendant was subjected to a polygraph examination followed by an extended interrogation using techniques consistent with the Reid Technique.

The court found that the defendant's statements were inadmissible both under the common law confessions rule and as a violation of section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused brought a Charter application under s. 11(b) alleging a breach of the right to trial within a reasonable time.

The accused was arrested on February 5, 2019 and charged with communicating with a person under the age of sixteen for the purpose of facilitating sexual assault and sexual interference, failure to comply with recognizance, and failure to comply with undertaking.

The trial was scheduled to commence approximately 22 months after arrest, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown argued that the delay attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and court suspension of operations constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the delay.

The court found that 7 months and 10 days of delay could be attributed to the pandemic, reducing net delay to 14 months and 20 days, below the presumptive ceiling.

The court found the defence failed to demonstrate meaningful and sustained efforts to expedite proceedings or that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with ten offences related to child pornography, sexual interference, and counselling sexual offences.

The Crown's case involved an undercover police investigation where Detective Constable Mailer posed as "Sara Mills," a fictitious mother, in response to the accused's Craigslist advertisement.

Over several days of online communications via Kik messenger, the accused engaged in explicit discussions about sexual acts involving children, sent images alleged to be child pornography, and made arrangements to meet.

The accused was arrested before the planned meeting.

The trial addressed three principal issues: whether the police breached the accused's Charter rights regarding privacy in electronic communications; which photographs constituted child pornography; and whether the accused was entrapped.

The court found no Charter breach, identified specific images as child pornography, and rejected the entrapment defence, finding the police investigation was bona fide with reasonable suspicion and that the accused was not induced to commit the offences.

The defendant was charged with operating a conveyance while impaired by alcohol and having 80 mg or more of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.

She brought a Charter application to exclude breath test evidence, alleging breaches of her s. 10(b) (right to counsel), s. 8 (search and seizure), and s. 9 (arbitrary detention) rights.

The defendant argued that the approved screening device demand was not made immediately, that she was not advised of her right to counsel during the delay caused by her chewing gum, and that her arrest was arbitrary.

The court found that the demand was made immediately, that the delay was too brief to require the officer to facilitate access to counsel, and that the defendant's Charter rights were not infringed.

The application was dismissed and the breath test evidence was admitted.

The accused, a self-represented inmate, brought multiple Charter applications seeking a stay of proceedings on grounds of alleged violations of his rights to privacy, full answer and defence, and a fair trial.

The accused alleged privacy violations arising from exposure of his genitals during medical treatment and use of washroom facilities while under video surveillance at the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre.

He also alleged that disclosure was not provided in a timely manner and that his incarceration without access to counsel, the internet, or adequate telephone access compromised his ability to prepare his defence.

The court dismissed all applications, finding no Charter breaches that would warrant a stay of proceedings.

The applicant was charged with seven firearm-related offences and brought a motion to exclude evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant on a residence.

The applicant argued that the information to obtain (ITO) for the search warrant lacked sufficient grounds, contained inaccurate statements and improper generalizations, and that the affiant was not truthful about independently confirming information regarding the confidential informer's reliability.

The court applied the narrow Garofoli review standard and found that despite deficiencies in the ITO, there remained a sufficient basis on which the issuing justice could have issued the warrant.

The application was dismissed.

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

Following a trial on December 19, 2019, the court reserved judgment.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging a breach of section 10(b) rights (right to counsel).

The court also raised concerns about section 7 and 11(d) Charter violations based on the credibility and reliability of the police officer's testimony.

The section 10(b) application was dismissed, but the court found that the officer's misleading and evasive testimony during trial constituted an abuse of process violating sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.

As a result, the breath evidence was excluded, leading to an acquittal.

The applicant corporation brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on an alleged breach of its section 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The matter arose from a serious workplace injury in 2013.

An information was sworn in June 2014, and the first trial commenced in April 2016 but was stayed in January 2018 on Charter grounds.

The Crown appealed and obtained a retrial order in March 2019.

The court found that the retrial delay of 10 months and 15 days (after excluding defence delay) was unreasonable in the context of a retrial that should have been prioritized.

The court granted the stay of proceedings, finding that institutional delay was the primary cause of the violation of the accused's right to trial within a reasonable time.

The applicant was charged with 20 counts including dangerous driving, drug-impaired driving, using a firearm while committing an indictable offence, and assault with a weapon.

The charges comprised two separate informations: the first laid in July 2017 relating to an incident on July 15, 2017, and the second laid in April 2018 relating to historic offences from 2016.

The charges were consolidated into a single information and tried together.

The applicant applied for a stay of proceedings on the grounds that his right to a trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been violated.

The court found that the net delay on the first set of charges exceeded the presumptive 18-month Jordan ceiling and granted a stay on those counts.

However, the court treated the second set of charges separately and found the delay was within the presumptive ceiling, dismissing the stay application for those counts.

The defendant was charged with Operation Impaired and Blow Over 80 following a traffic stop.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of the police investigation, alleging breaches of Charter rights under sections 10(a), 10(b), 8, and 9.

The court found that while there was no breach of section 10(a), the officer violated the defendant's section 10(b) rights by failing to consider whether there was a realistic opportunity for the defendant to consult counsel before administering the roadside breath demand.

This violation rendered the demand unlawful and the breath samples inadmissible.

The Over 80 charge was dismissed.

However, the court found the defendant guilty of Operation Impaired based on evidence of erratic driving and indicia of impairment observed prior to the Charter breach.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess blood alcohol (over 80) following a traffic stop on September 20, 2018.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of her arrest and detention on Charter grounds, arguing violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable grounds to arrest for impaired driving, as the only observations were signs of alcohol consumption rather than impairment.

The court also found that the defendant's detention was unlawful as she was not brought before a justice within 24 hours as required by the Criminal Code.

The Intoxilyzer test results were excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The defendant was acquitted of both charges.

The accused was charged with driving with excess blood alcohol (over 80 mg/100 ml) following a traffic stop for dangerous driving.

The accused challenged the admissibility of breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, alleging multiple Charter violations including arbitrary detention, failure to provide timely rights to counsel, and failure to comply with the "forthwith" requirement for the approved screening device demand.

The court found minor breaches of sections 8 and 10(b) of the Charter but admitted the evidence, finding that the breaches were inadvertent, the impact on Charter-protected interests was minimal, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits favoured admission.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine (2 counts), possession of marijuana, and failure to comply with recognizance conditions.

The defence brought a Garofoli application challenging the validity of a tracking warrant issued under section 492.1 of the Criminal Code, alleging that the information to obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable grounds to suspect and breached the accused's Charter rights under sections 8 and 9.

The Crown argued that the anonymous source's information was corroborated and confirmed through police investigation.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the totality of the facts disclosed in the ITO provided reasonable grounds to suspect the accused was involved in drug trafficking and that the tracking warrant was properly authorized.

The accused were charged with numerous Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences following a search of their basement dwelling and garage.

The charges arose from evidence obtained during a warrantless home inspection conducted by a child protection worker with police assistance, and a subsequent search warrant based on observations from that initial warrantless entry.

The court found that the warrantless home inspection violated the accused's Charter rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The worker lacked statutory authority to conduct a home inspection for investigative purposes, as the Child, Youth, and Family Services Act only authorized warrantless entries for the purpose of removing children in need of protection to a place of safety.

The court rejected the Crown's reliance on the ancillary powers doctrine, finding it does not extend to non-police officers.

The subsequent search warrant was invalid as it relied entirely on evidence obtained from the unlawful warrantless search.

All evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, and both accused were acquitted on all charges.

The accused challenged the validity of search warrants issued for his apartment and vehicle on Charter grounds, arguing that the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient grounds to justify the warrants.

The Crown conceded that the redacted ITO was insufficient and sought to rely on unredacted portions protected by informer privilege.

The court applied the Debot criteria to assess whether information from a confidential informant, combined with police investigation and the accused's criminal record, established reasonable and probable grounds to believe the accused unlawfully possessed a firearm.

The court found the information sufficiently compelling, credible, and corroborated to justify the warrant issuance.

The accused's section 8 Charter rights were not infringed.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized during the execution of search warrants on three apartments and a motor vehicle.

The accused challenged the admissibility of evidence under sections 8, 9, 10(b), and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the accused's section 9 rights were not violated as police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest.

However, the court found violations of section 8 rights because the Information to Obtain, as amplified on review, failed to disclose reasonable and probable grounds to believe evidence would be found at the target apartment.

The court also found a violation of section 10(b) rights due to an unjustified delay in providing access to counsel.

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

The applicant challenged the validity of a search warrant under s. 8 of the Charter pursuant to R. v. Garofoli.

Police obtained a warrant to search a residence and vehicle based on information from a confidential informant that the applicant was trafficking in drugs, corroborated by an undercover drug purchase and police investigation.

The applicant argued the warrant was insufficient because the informant was wrong about the vehicle used and the connection to the residence was weak.

The court upheld the warrant, finding that the police investigation provided sufficient corroboration of the informant's tip and that reasonable inferences could be drawn establishing a nexus between the applicant and the residence where drugs could be found.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operation with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg/100ml following a traffic stop.

The Crown presented evidence of erratic driving observed by a civilian witness, observations by police officers at the roadside and station, and approved breath test results of 297 and 280 mg/100ml.

The accused claimed his driving errors and physical symptoms resulted from medical conditions including post-chemotherapy spasms and medication non-compliance.

The court found the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt based on credible evidence from the civilian witness and police officers, rejecting the accused's medical explanation as not credible.

The court also dismissed Charter applications regarding the timing of the approved instrument demand and the duration of detention.

The accused was found guilty on the impaired driving count, while the "Over 80" count was stayed.