Ron Ellis

The applicant was charged with luring a person under the age of 16 by means of telecommunication contrary to section 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant pleaded guilty but sought a stay of proceedings, alleging a breach of his Charter rights under section 7 and claiming entrapment.

The police had posted an advertisement on Kijiji posing as a 14-year-old female and engaged in email communications with the applicant over several months.

The court rejected the entrapment defence, finding that the police conducted a valid bona fide investigation using a legitimate investigative technique at a location where the crime is committed at a high rate, and that there was no inducement that would offend basic community values.

Media organizations sought certiorari to quash a provincial court judge’s order imposing a partial publication ban and denying access to a video exhibit tendered during a guilty plea for obstruction of justice arising from a detention-centre death.

The applicants argued that the provincial court judge lacked jurisdiction and that the order failed the Dagenais/Mentuck test.

The Superior Court held that the judge presiding over the guilty plea had jurisdiction to consider and grant a publication ban related to the proceeding before him.

The court found that the partial ban appropriately balanced open court principles with the fair trial rights of co‑accused facing related charges.

The court concluded that the order was necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk to the proper administration of justice and that no error of law appeared on the face of the record.

The appellant appealed convictions for production of marijuana, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and theft under.

He argued the circumstantial evidence did not support the inference that he had the required knowledge and control of the grow operation.

The court held that the trial judge properly assessed the evidence as a whole, correctly instructed herself on circumstantial evidence, and reasonably concluded that the only reasonable inference was guilt.

The court also rejected the submission that documents seized from the appellant’s home were used improperly.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused brought an application to exclude statements made to police following arrest for possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused argued that police violated his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel by questioning him after he had requested to speak with a lawyer and before he had a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel.

The court found that although the police were justified in delaying access to a telephone until arrival at the station due to safety and logistical concerns, officers nonetheless elicited information from the accused during the hold‑off period.

Applying the framework in R. v. Grant, the court held the Charter breaches were serious and significantly impacted the accused’s right against self‑incrimination.

The accused’s statements made between arrest and arrival at the police station were excluded under s. 24(2).

The accused applied for a Fisher (Peterman) order seeking increased public funding to retain specific out‑of‑town counsel at rates substantially higher than the Legal Aid tariff.

Both accused already held Legal Aid certificates with travel authorization for counsel.

The court held that the right to counsel of choice does not impose a positive obligation on the state to fund that counsel at enhanced rates.

The applicants had not exhausted available competent counsel in nearby jurisdictions and the circumstances did not meet the extraordinary threshold required for such relief.

The application was dismissed.