P. Kort

The accused was charged with Over 80 and Impaired Driving following a traffic stop.

During police custody, the accused was subjected to a strip search requiring removal of her underwire bra without reasonable and probable grounds.

The Crown conceded the breach of section 8 Charter rights.

The court found the strip search was part of a systemic and routine police practice at the detachment applied without exception to all female detainees wearing underwire bras.

The court granted a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter, finding that proceeding to trial would manifest, perpetuate, and aggravate the prejudice to the integrity of the justice system.

The court noted that had the 24(1) remedy not been available, it would have excluded the breath test evidence under section 24(2) and acquitted on the impaired driving charge due to insufficient evidence of impairment beyond the odour of alcohol.

At a preliminary inquiry into the death of Shane Stone, the Crown sought committal of three accused on charges of second degree murder.

The victim was beaten to death in the accused's bedroom on January 2, 2013.

One accused conceded committal.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit the other two accused to trial on second degree murder, with one accused also facing charges of accessory after the fact and robbery.

The decision turned on circumstantial evidence including DNA findings, forensic evidence, witness testimony, and cell phone records establishing presence and participation in the assault.

The Crown applied to admit evidence of prior discreditable conduct by two of the accused relating to an assault on November 23, 2011, to support a committal on a charge of second degree murder.

One accused conceded committal, but the other objected.

The court found that while some similarities existed between the prior assault and the charged offence, most were generic in nature and present in countless assault cases.

The court held that the probative value of the similar fact evidence was limited and did not outweigh the risk of prejudice.

The Crown's reasoning essentially sought to establish that the accused was the "type of person" who commits serious assaults, which is prohibited reasoning.

The application was dismissed.