R. Chartier

The Crown applied to have the court endorse a certificate of default pursuant to s. 770(1) of the Criminal Code, alleging the respondent breached his bail conditions by failing to reside at his specified address, breaching a curfew, and committing offences in the United States.

The respondent had failed to attend the last day of his trial because he was in custody in New York.

The court dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence to establish that the respondent failed to reside at his address, breached his curfew without an applicable exception, or committed the alleged offences in the US.

Four co-accused were tried for their alleged roles in a coordinated jewellery store robbery and a preceding distraction shooting.

The Crown relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including covert video surveillance, intercepted communications, and DNA.

The court acquitted Hadi of all charges due to reasonable doubt regarding his identification from video evidence.

Mitsakis and Bangura were convicted of conspiracy, robbery, and firearms offences related to the distraction shooting, as DNA and circumstantial evidence proved their involvement.

Mohamed was acquitted of robbery but convicted of being an accessory after the fact, dangerous driving, and fleeing from police after he attempted to escape the arrest scene in a vehicle containing evidence.

The accused was stopped at a R.I.D.E. spot check where an officer smelled marijuana and observed erratic behaviour.

After a brief interaction, the accused was arrested for possession of marijuana and placed in a police cruiser.

At the end of the officer's shift, cocaine and a heroin/fentanyl mixture were found in the cruiser where the accused had been seated.

The court dismissed the accused's Charter application, finding the initial interaction and search incident to arrest were lawful.

The court concluded the accused placed the drugs in the cruiser and found him guilty of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and simple possession of heroin.

The accused, charged with dangerous driving and firearm offences, sought a bail review after being denied bail on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found that the proposed addition of a GPS ankle monitor constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court concluded that the strict supervision plan, including house arrest with two sureties and electronic monitoring, addressed the secondary ground concerns.

Balancing the factors under s. 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code, the court found that detention was not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for interim judicial release was granted.

During a proceeding for a carjacking and shooting, the Crown sought to introduce non-expert recognition evidence from a police officer to identify one of the accused from security video.

The officer's prior interactions with the accused occurred mostly when the accused was a child, were brief, and were undocumented.

A subsequent interaction was specifically directed by a superior officer for the purpose of identification.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding the officer lacked sufficient prior acquaintance and that the post-offence contact was tainted by its investigative purpose.