Patrick J. Ducharme

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being denied release on the tertiary ground.

He faced multiple drug trafficking and firearms charges.

The reviewing judge found no error in the initial detention order but concluded that an amended release plan, which included a new residential surety, a significant financial pledge, and a professionally installed security system, constituted a material change in circumstances.

Considering the strict house arrest conditions and the elevated risk posed by the COVID-19 pandemic in correctional facilities, the court granted the application and ordered the applicant's release.

The accused, a 29-year-old pizzeria owner, was charged with sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching involving a 13-year-old complainant.

The accused admitted to the sexual acts but raised a mistake of age defence, claiming he believed the complainant was 16.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as not credible and found that he failed to take all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age, ignoring multiple 'red flags' such as her brother's age and her school grade.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The defendants were successful on a motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's action and sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff opposed the quantum, arguing the evidentiary record on the motion was incomplete and the costs claimed were excessive.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments regarding the evidentiary record, noting the plaintiff was represented by counsel and chose not to file responding evidence.

The court found the defendants' claimed costs of $44,644.28 to be reasonable, proportionate, and within the range the plaintiff would reasonably expect to pay.

Costs were fixed in that amount.

The accused was arrested for sexual assault.

At the police station, officers conducted a warrantless penile swab search while the accused was completely naked, without readvising him of his right to counsel.

The accused brought a motion to exclude the DNA evidence obtained from the swab, alleging violations of his rights under ss. 8 and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found that while a penile swab can be a lawful search incident to arrest, the manner of the search violated s. 8 due to lack of privacy, unnecessary complete nudity, and poor record-keeping.

The court also found a s. 10(b) violation because the police failed to provide the accused with an additional opportunity to consult counsel before conducting the new, non-routine penile swab procedure.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and excluded the penile swab evidence.

The accused was charged with impaired driving causing death and bodily harm, and driving over 80 causing death and bodily harm, following a fatal intersection collision.

The court found that the accused's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol and that his blood alcohol concentration was over the legal limit, rejecting defence arguments regarding the maintenance and operation of the breathalyzer instrument.

However, the court acquitted the accused of the charges relating to causing death and bodily harm, finding that the collision was caused by the other driver proceeding into the intersection when it was unsafe to do so.

The accused was convicted of the lesser included offence of impaired driving, with the over 80 charge stayed.