Roberta Bald

The Crown applied for an adjournment of a bail hearing pursuant to section 516(1) of the Criminal Code to permit further investigation, including interviews with the accused's child and a Children's Aid worker, and to conduct other police investigations.

The accused opposed the adjournment and was ready to proceed with the bail hearing.

The Justice of the Peace denied the Crown's application, finding that the reasons advanced—further investigation and investigation of a potential new charge—were insufficient to pre-empt the accused's constitutional right to a prompt determination of bail.

The bail hearing proceeded on the scheduled date.

The applicant sought an order quashing a preliminary hearing judge's decision to commit her for trial on five charges, including firearm possession, unlawful transfer, theft of chattels, unlawful entry into a dwelling, and possession of a firearm obtained by crime.

The court reviewed the committal for jurisdictional error, specifically the absence of evidence on essential elements.

The court found sufficient evidence for committal on the firearm charges (Counts 1, 2, 5) and theft (Count 3, limited to money and the firearm).

However, the committal for unlawful entry (Count 4) was quashed because the applicant, as a joint owner of the matrimonial home without an exclusive possession order, had a lawful right to be there.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of Oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of the arrest, arguing that police relied exclusively on information from a confidential informant that lacked sufficient detail and corroboration.

The court found that the arrest was lawful based on the totality of circumstances, including the credibility of the informant, the compelling nature of the information provided, and police corroboration through surveillance.

The court distinguished the case from R v. Daley, finding that the informant had firsthand knowledge, a proven track record, and that police observations corroborated the informant's information.

The accused was found guilty on all remaining counts.

The Crown prosecuted two accused for robbery, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon, and related offences arising from a failed drug transaction on December 4, 2012, outside the Nickel City Hotel in Greater Sudbury.

The accused claimed the complainant initiated an unprovoked knife attack on the female accused, which the male accused defended against.

The court rejected this defence of necessity, finding instead that the accused had planned to rob the complainant of money during a drug deal.

The court convicted both accused of robbery and related offences while staying certain charges as duplicitous under the Kienapple and Prince principles.