Appeared as counsel in 27 cases (1985–2007)
4 total
A police officer was acquitted of manslaughter and assault after the court found reasonable doubt regarding the justification of his use of force and causation of the suspect's death.
Constable Daniel Montsion was tried on charges of manslaughter, aggravated assault, and assault with a weapon arising from his role in the arrest of Abdirahman Abdi on July 24, 2016, in Ottawa.
Mr. Abdi died in cardiac arrest shortly after the arrest.
The Crown alleged that Constable Montsion unlawfully assaulted Mr. Abdi by punching him multiple times in the face and head while wearing hard-knuckled gloves, and that this assault was a significant contributing cause of Mr. Abdi's death.
The defence argued that Constable Montsion's use of force was legally justified under section 25(1) of the Criminal Code and that he did not cause Mr. Abdi's injuries or death.
After a 72-day trial, Justice Kelly found Constable Montsion not guilty on all charges, concluding that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his conduct was unlawful or criminally negligent, that he caused Mr. Abdi's nasal injuries, or that he caused Mr. Abdi's death.
The court dismissed the accused's Charter application, finding the search warrants valid despite drafting errors.
The defendant was charged with producing marijuana and possessing marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.
He brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence, alleging violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.
The defendant challenged the validity of search warrants executed at his residence and two industrial units, his arrest, and warrantless searches of his person and vehicle.
The court found that the search warrants were validly issued based on reliable information from a confidential informer that was corroborated through police investigation.
The arrest was lawful and the seizure of keys from the defendant's person was a valid search incident to arrest.
The court dismissed the Charter application but excluded evidence seized from the residence under section 24(2) due to the seriousness of police carelessness in drafting the Information to Obtain and the significant impact on the defendant's privacy rights in his home.
Evidence from the industrial units and the keys were admitted.
The court granted a stay of proceedings due to an unreasonable 21.5-month trial delay.
The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80 on August 1, 2010.
An information was sworn on August 9, 2010.
A trial date was set for June 20, 2011, but the trial did not proceed due to disclosure issues, particularly the late delivery of a 911 call recording and surveillance footage from the police division.
A second trial date was set for May 23 and 24, 2012, resulting in a total delay of 21.5 months.
The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings on the grounds that the delay infringed his right to be tried within a reasonable time.
The court found that the delay exceeded constitutional limits and granted the stay.
The court granted the accused leave to cross-examine the affiant and one sub-affiant regarding a search warrant.
The defendant sought leave to cross-examine five police officers regarding the validity of three search warrants executed on his residence and industrial units.
The Crown conceded that the search warrants were invalid based on the edited Information to Obtain documents and sought to rely on unedited versions under the "step 6 Garofoli" procedure.
The court granted leave to cross-examine the affiant constable broadly, with restrictions on informer privilege, and permitted limited cross-examination of one sub-affiant regarding trespass issues, while denying leave to cross-examine other sub-affiants.
