Perrin Valli

The accused, Joseph Thibodeau, was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample.

He brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found that police officers trespassed on the accused's private property, exceeding their implied license, thereby violating his section 8 and 9 Charter rights.

The court also found a section 10(b) violation due to delayed notification of rights to counsel and failure to facilitate access to counsel of choice.

Although the officers had reasonable suspicion for the ASD demand, the grounds were obtained through an unlawful search.

Consequently, the ASD demand was invalid, entitling the accused to refuse.

The court concluded that the evidence obtained in violation of the Charter should be excluded under section 24(2), leading to an acquittal.

The appellant was convicted of possession of a firearm obtained by crime, possession of property obtained by crime, break and enter to steal a firearm, and break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence.

The appellant appealed on the grounds that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and incorrectly applied the rules of circumstantial evidence in finding that the appellant was the perpetrator of the break-in and that the rifle was a firearm within the meaning of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusions were well-grounded in the evidence and that there was no reasonable alternative inference.

The accused was charged with nine criminal offences arising from events on June 18, 2017, including break and enter, theft and possession of a firearm, possession and theft of a laptop, and possession of stolen property (bicycle).

The Crown proceeded by indictment.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 10(a) and 10(b) rights.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding no investigative detention occurred and that police conduct was reasonable.

At trial, the court found the accused guilty of break and enter, possession of a firearm, theft of a firearm, and possession of stolen property (laptop).

The court dismissed charges relating to theft of the laptop and possession of the bicycle due to insufficient evidence.

Three counts of breach of recognizance were also dismissed as the Crown failed to prove the validity of the recognizance.

The defendant was charged with multiple offences including possession of stolen property, failing to comply with recognizance, breach of probation, using a stolen credit card, and simple possession of morphine.

Following a blended voir dire and trial, the court found that the defendant's Charter rights under sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) were violated during a police stop and search.

The Crown conceded a section 8 breach.

The court found additional violations of sections 9, 10(a), and 10(b), and excluded all evidence obtained as a result of these breaches under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The defendant was acquitted on all counts.

A bail hearing concerning charges of possession of proceeds from crime, possession of marijuana, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and trafficking in cocaine.

The Crown initially recommended release on a recognizance with one surety, but withdrew its consent when the justice raised concerns about the ladder principle and Charter implications.

The matter proceeded as a contested bail hearing.

The justice released the accused on a recognizance without sureties with conditions, including a $2,500 bond, residence requirements, curfew, no-contact orders, and substance abuse counselling.