Robert J. McGowan

The accused, Michele Arnold and Jean Lafontaine, brought a Charter application alleging violations of their section 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) and section 9 (arbitrary detention) rights.

They sought to exclude evidence obtained from a search warrant executed at their residence.

The court reviewed the Information to Obtain (ITO) supporting the warrant, applying the Debot test for compelling, credible, and corroborated information from confidential informants and anonymous sources, and the Garofoli standard for reviewing search warrants.

The court found that the ITO provided reasonable grounds for the search, concluding there was no Charter violation.

Consequently, the application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing bodily harm, impaired driving causing bodily harm, failing to stop and provide assistance after an accident, and breach of a recognizance of bail.

On September 25, 2016, the defendant drove while impaired with a blood alcohol level between 145-200 mg/100ml, causing his vehicle to roll and injure two passengers.

One victim suffered catastrophic spinal cord injuries resulting in paraplegia.

The defendant fled the scene and hid from police.

The court imposed a sentence of 3 years custody with a 6-year driving prohibition, balancing significant aggravating factors including catastrophic injuries to victims, prior impaired driving conviction, and breach of bail conditions, against mitigating factors including guilty plea, genuine remorse, and successful rehabilitation from alcohol addiction.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter, relying on R. v. Jordan.

The total delay from charge to decision was 34.5 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive limit for Superior Court cases.

The court found the case to be complex due to numerous underage complainants and counts, and some complainants residing outside Ontario, which justified the lengthy preliminary hearing.

Crown counsel demonstrated reasonable reliance on the pre-Jordan legal framework, and defence counsel raised delay concerns only at a very late stage, after closing arguments.

The court concluded there was no unreasonable delay or disregard for the accused's rights under the former regime, and the complexity and transitional nature of the case constituted exceptional circumstances.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of assault, possession of a weapon (a knife), aggravated assault, and breach of probation following an incident with her then-boyfriend.

She was sentenced to two years' imprisonment on the aggravated assault conviction and 30 days concurrent for breach of probation.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the trial judge's rejection of her self-defence claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge properly considered and rejected the self-defence argument on the merits based on the evidence she accepted.

The appellant failed to demonstrate any palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or inferences.

Jarrett Sauve, charged with various weapons offences, challenged the admissibility of his utterances and videotaped statement to police.

The applications were based on alleged violations of his right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter and involuntariness under the common law confessions rule.

The court conducted a voir dire and found that initial utterances to D/Cst.

McGillis were made when Sauve was not detained, thus no Charter breach.

Utterances to Cst.

St-Amand were deemed spontaneous, and no Charter breach was found.

For the videotaped statement, the court concluded that Sauve had waived his right to counsel and that the statement was voluntary, not induced by threats or oppression.

Consequently, all challenged statements were ruled admissible.

The applicants, charged with firearms offences, brought pre-trial applications alleging breaches of their Charter rights and seeking the exclusion of a handgun and ammunition found in a backpack.

The police detained one of the applicants under the Customs Act after observing suspicious activity near the St. Lawrence River.

The court found the detention was lawful under s. 9 of the Charter, but the subsequent warrantless search of the backpack violated s. 8 as it did not meet the standard for a safety search.

The court also found breaches of the applicant's s. 10(a) and 10(b) rights.

However, applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court concluded that the evidence should not be excluded, as the breaches were not wilful or flagrant, the evidence was reliable and discoverable, and its exclusion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The evidence was ruled admissible against both applicants.

Following a jury conviction for trafficking cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the court considered the appropriate sentence.

The offender played a secondary role in a buy‑bust operation involving approximately one ounce of cocaine and had limited criminal history, strong family support, and demonstrated rehabilitation since the offence.

The court rejected the argument that the Kienapple rule barred multiple convictions, finding trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking constituted distinct criminal wrongs.

After reviewing authorities on conditional sentences in drug trafficking cases and considering the principles of deterrence, denunciation, rehabilitation, and parity with a co‑accused, the court concluded that the offender did not pose a danger to the community.

A conditional sentence served in the community was imposed with strict conditions.