Ryan Iaquinta

The accused was stopped for speeding in a construction zone on the 401 in Chatham-Kent County.

During the traffic stop, police detected the odour of cannabis and observed what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette in the vehicle.

Police conducted a search of the vehicle and the accused under the Cannabis Control Act, 2017, and subsequently discovered a prohibited firearm, magazines, ammunition, and other items.

The accused was charged with various offences related to possession of prohibited weapons and ammunition.

The court found that the police lacked reasonable grounds to conduct the warrantless search under the Cannabis Control Act, that the detention was arbitrary, and that the accused was handcuffed without objective justification.

The court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of the Charter violations under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the accused, Dustin Matthews, on a charge of having an excess of blood alcohol concentration.

The trial judge had found breaches of sections 8 (unreasonable search) and 10(b) (right to counsel) of the Charter and excluded evidence under section 24(2).

The appeal court found no section 8 breach, ruling that police had an implied invitation to knock on the garage door during a hit-and-run investigation, which was not a pretextual search.

It also found no section 10(b) breach, as the brief delay in reading rights was permissible for driving offences.

Consequently, the section 24(2) analysis was deemed unnecessary.

The appeal was granted, and a conviction was registered.

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder for stabbing his brother to death following a dispute over a loan.

The court considered the mandatory life sentence and determined the appropriate period of parole ineligibility.

Weighing numerous aggravating factors, including the unprovoked nature of the attack outside the home and the presence of the victim's wife, against mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of a prior record and refugee background, the court fixed the period of parole ineligibility at 13 years.

Mohammed Younus was tried for the murder of his brother, Shamsul Alamshah.

The initial charge of first-degree murder was reduced to second-degree murder.

The court assessed the accused's defenses of accident, self-defence, and provocation.

The judge found Younus's testimony incredible and unreliable, concluding that he was the aggressor in the fatal stabbing.

The court rejected all defenses, finding that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Younus intended to cause death or bodily harm likely to cause death.

Younus was found guilty of second-degree murder.

The accused was charged with an Over 80 offence following a RIDE program stop.

The accused alleged that the arresting officer steered him towards duty counsel after arrest, thereby breaching his constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel of choice.

The Crown conceded that steering occurred but argued it did not constitute a breach.

The court found that the officer's imprecise and careless communications misled the accused about the scope of his right to counsel of choice.

The officer failed to provide reasonable opportunities to contact alternative counsel and failed to adequately respond to the accused's expressed dissatisfaction with duty counsel.

The court found a breach of section 10(b) of the Charter and excluded the breath test evidence, resulting in an acquittal.

The defendant was charged with failing to comply with a breath demand made by a peace officer to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device, contrary to the Criminal Code.

The Crown also proceeded on associated provincial offences alleging breach of a probation order prohibiting driving with a blood alcohol concentration above zero and failure to provide a breath sample as a novice driver.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of evidence on Charter grounds, arguing that his rights to counsel were violated while awaiting the arrival of the approved screening device.

The trial judge found no Charter breach.

However, on the substantive issue, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally failed to provide a sample, as opposed to merely being unable to do so.

The defendant was acquitted of all charges.

The defendant was charged with refusing to provide a sample of breath into an approved screening device (ASD) following a traffic stop in Pickering.

The Crown alleged the defendant made multiple attempts to blow into the ASD but failed to provide a satisfactory sample.

The defendant claimed he was only given three attempts without warning.

The court found the defendant's testimony neither credible nor reliable, accepted the corroborated testimony of the two police officers, and determined that the ASD demand was made forthwith as required by law.

The defendant was found guilty as charged.