Pharah Arileena Bacchus

The accused brought Charter motions (ss. 7, 10(a), 10(b)) to exclude drug and money evidence in a trial for possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court found no s. 7 violation regarding police body-worn camera (BWC) muting or late activation, as no evidence was "lost" and no prejudice was demonstrated.

However, the court found s. 10(a) and 10(b) violations due to delayed and incomplete advisement of rights upon detention and arrest.

Applying the s. 24(2) Grant analysis, the court determined that the evidence should not be excluded, weighing the seriousness of the breaches (moderate, good faith, fluid situation) against the minimal impact on the accused's Charter interests (no incriminating statements, evidence discoverable) and society's strong interest in adjudicating serious drug offences on their merits.

The motions to exclude evidence were dismissed, and the accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to being unlawfully in a dwelling on April 18, 2020, break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence on April 19, 2020, and failure to comply with a probation order.

The central issue was the calculation of enhanced presentence custody credit, particularly regarding lockdown conditions at Toronto South Detention Centre and COVID-19 pandemic impacts.

The court imposed an 18-month global sentence with enhanced presentence custody credit totalling 18 months, resulting in immediate release on probation.

The judgment addresses systemic failures in the detention centre's provision of personal protective equipment to vulnerable detainees.

The applicants, Rupert Folkard and Joseph Goldfinger, jointly charged with fraud over $5000, sought a Rowbotham Order for state-funded legal counsel after being refused Legal Aid.

The court applied the three-part test for a Rowbotham Order, finding that while the applicants were indigent despite exceeding Legal Aid thresholds, their right to a fair trial would not be materially compromised if unrepresented.

The charges were serious, but the facts were not overly complex, and both applicants, despite lacking legal training, were intelligent, educated, and accustomed to financial documents.

The court dismissed the application, concluding that they possessed the necessary skills to represent themselves and that logistical issues with disclosure could be resolved without state-funded counsel.

The defendant was charged with failure to provide a breath sample contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

A police officer observed the defendant seated in the driver's seat of a vehicle in a bar parking lot, heard the engine running, and formed reasonable suspicion that the defendant had alcohol in his body and was in care or control of the vehicle.

The officer made a lawful approved screening device demand.

The defendant refused to comply, claiming he had an ignition interlock device installed in his vehicle and was waiting for a designated driver.

The court found the demand was lawful, the refusal was unequivocal and wilful, and the defendant had no reasonable excuse for non-compliance.

The defendant was convicted.

The offender was convicted after trial of robbery arising from a planned home invasion robbery targeting jewellery vendors returning home with inventory worth approximately $250,000.

Although not present during the violent robbery, the offender aided the offence by renting a vehicle used in the operation and facilitating access to a building where stolen property was transported.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the violent home invasion involving masked perpetrators and serious psychological harm to the victims.

A conditional sentence was found unavailable because the offence constituted a serious personal injury offence within the meaning of the Criminal Code.

Considering parity with other participants, mitigating factors including the offender’s lack of criminal record, limited role, pre‑trial custody, restrictive bail conditions, and immigration consequences, the court imposed a custodial sentence of 18 months.

During a jury trial for cocaine trafficking, the Crown invoked investigation privilege to prevent disclosure of the surveillance location from which a police officer observed the accused during an undercover drug transaction.

The court reviewed the principles governing investigative technique and observation post privilege, balancing the public interest in protecting police methods and cooperating third parties against the accused’s right to make full answer and defence.

The judge permitted extensive cross‑examination regarding the officer’s ability to observe but prohibited questions that would reveal the precise surveillance location or whether the officer was inside or outside a building.

The jury was instructed that the privilege limited defence cross‑examination and that this limitation could affect the weight given to the officer’s testimony.

The jury ultimately acquitted one accused and convicted the other.