Paul Scotland

The applicant, a young Black man, was stopped for a traffic infraction which evolved into a search under the Cannabis Control Act after the officer smelled burnt cannabis and saw a lighter.

A loaded handgun and drugs were found.

The applicant brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) rights, including allegations of racial profiling and police theft of his property.

The court found no breaches of ss. 7, 8, 9, or 10(a).

The court found minor breaches of s. 10(b) due to a 15-minute delay in providing rights to counsel, post-arrest questioning, and steering the applicant to duty counsel.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2), and the matter was ordered to proceed to trial.

The accused brought a third party records application under the Criminal Code seeking school, child protection, and police records relating both to the complainant’s allegations against him and later allegations against the complainant’s step-father.

The court held that credibility and reliability were central trial issues and that the timing, content, and surrounding circumstances of the later allegations provided a concrete factual basis for likely relevance, rather than impermissible speculation or a fishing expedition.

Applying the statutory two-stage production regime and the balancing approach from Mills, the court found the records necessary to permit full answer and defence notwithstanding the complainant’s significant privacy interests.

Disclosure to the defence was ordered, subject to redactions, removal of irrelevant material, and strict restrictions on copying, dissemination, and use.

The accused, a lawful gun owner and security company operator, was charged with two counts: careless transportation of a firearm on June 21, 2012 (Count 2) and careless storage of a firearm on June 27, 2012 (Count 3).

On Count 2, police observed a shotgun mounted visibly in the accused's unattended vehicle for over an hour, contrary to transportation regulations.

On Count 3, police found a shotgun stored in an unlocked bedroom with ammunition readily accessible in a side saddle attached to the gun and additional ammunition on a dresser.

The trial court found the Crown proved both charges beyond a reasonable doubt, rejecting the defence arguments regarding admissibility of photographs, reliability of officer testimony, proof that the item was a firearm, and proof that the vehicle was unattended.

The court also rejected the defence submission that a trigger lock alone satisfied storage requirements when ammunition remained readily accessible.

The court ruled on the admissibility of a statement made by a young person (D.T.) to his school vice-principal regarding an alleged robbery.

The Crown and defence agreed that the vice-principal was a "person in authority" but the court disagreed.

The court found that the vice-principal was not a person in authority because she was not acting as an agent of the state, had no control over the police investigation, and was conducting an educational meeting rather than an interrogation.

The statement was therefore admissible as an admission rather than a confession requiring compliance with the Youth Criminal Justice Act.