Sayed Hafizi

During the execution of a search warrant at a residence, the applicant, a Black man who was not the target of the warrant, was ordered to the ground and handcuffed by tactical officers pursuant to a general police policy.

He was subsequently arrested for drug possession by another officer who mistakenly believed he was already under arrest and who lacked objective reasonable grounds.

The applicant brought a motion to exclude the seized fentanyl under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found flagrant violations of the applicant's s. 9 and s. 10(b) rights, noting the systemic issues and the heightened impact of the breaches on a racialized individual in his own home.

The evidence was excluded.

During a jury trial for drug and proceeds of crime offences, the accused testified that the $605 found on him upon arrest was from cashing a welfare cheque.

The Crown sought to cross-examine him and call reply evidence based on social assistance records indicating he did not receive payments by cheque.

The court dismissed the accused's section 8 Charter application, finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in the manner and timing of social assistance payments obtained by police under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The court also permitted the Crown to call reply evidence, as the accused's testimony was new, unforeseeable, and relevant to an essential issue.