R. Kodsy

The accused was stopped for suspected impaired driving.

The officer determined he was not impaired but was driving with a suspended license.

The officer decided to tow the vehicle and conducted a warrantless inventory search pursuant to police policy, discovering drugs and a weapon.

The accused was arrested and a further search of the trunk revealed a sawed-off shotgun.

The accused invoked his right to counsel of choice, but police made inadequate efforts to contact the lawyer, questioned the accused, and directed him to duty counsel.

The court found serious violations of the accused's rights under ss. 8 and 10(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2), finding that admitting it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute given the systemic and serious nature of the police misconduct.

The Crown brought an application to admit similar fact evidence in a jury trial involving multiple domestic violence and sexual assault allegations.

The proposed evidence concerned prior convictions involving a former partner and included incidents of choking, threats, confinement, and sexual violence.

The court applied the analytical framework for similar fact evidence and assessed whether the probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect, focusing on whether the evidence demonstrated a distinctive pattern of conduct relevant to the actus reus and consent.

The court found that two of the four prior incidents demonstrated a distinctive pattern involving jealousy-triggered violence, choking, and sexual violence, and that their probative value outweighed the risk of prejudice.

Evidence relating to the other incidents was excluded as insufficiently distinctive and overly prejudicial.