R. v. Davis, 2014 SCC 4, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 78

The applicant, Boysie Alexander Murray, brought a Charter application seeking to exclude evidence of a loaded firearm and cocaine seized during a police investigation.

He argued that the police arbitrarily detained him, used excessive force, and failed to provide his rights to counsel, all influenced by racial profiling.

The court found multiple serious Charter breaches, including shocking physical violence involving repeated taser use to the applicant's genital region.

Consequently, the court granted the Charter motion and excluded all seized evidence under section 24(2).

This decision addresses Charter applications by Tutshuma (Paul) Munda and Ade Munda, who were charged with firearms offences following a police search.

The court found that police used excessive force against Paul Munda when he was kicked in the face while handcuffed, breaching his s. 7 Charter rights, and that there was a 22-minute unreasonable delay in facilitating his right to counsel, breaching s. 10(b).

However, the evidence was not excluded, though a sentencing reduction was ordered if convicted.

The court dismissed all Charter claims by Ade Munda, finding the police use of force and delay in providing rights to counsel reasonable, and that inaccuracies in a police synopsis did not materially affect his bail hearing.

Michael Katz pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, assault police officer with a taser, failing to remain at the scene of an accident, and impaired operation of a motor vehicle.

The offences occurred on Christmas Day 2021, involving a car collision, flight from the scene, and a violent struggle with police where a firearm was discharged and a taser used against an officer.

The Crown sought a 4-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence of 6-9 months.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the seriousness of firearm offences, the discharge of a loaded weapon on a public street, the assault on a police officer, and the impaired driving.

Mitigating factors included the accused's guilty plea, remorse, lack of prior criminal record, strong family support, and compliance with strict bail conditions.

The court rejected the defence's argument for a sentencing discount due to alleged excessive force by police during arrest, finding the officers' actions reasonable given the dynamic and chaotic circumstances.

The judge found a conditional sentence inappropriate due to the pressing need for denunciation and deterrence.

The applicant, John Geddes, brought a Charter application under ss. 7, 8, and 9, seeking a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence (knife, firearm, drugs) seized upon his arrest.

He argued police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, the search was illegal, and excessive force was used.

The court dismissed the application, finding that police had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest based on DVR footage and victim information, the search incident to arrest was lawful and reasonable for safety and evidence discovery, and the force used was reasonable, proportionate, and necessary given the applicant's resistance and the dynamic circumstances.

The defendant, Dwight Dube, was charged with impaired driving and over 80.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) due to excessive force during arrest and improper implementation of the right to counsel.

The court found that police used excessive force, violating section 7 of the Charter, but found no violation of sections 8, 9, or 10(b).

Applying the Grant test, the court excluded the breath sample evidence and police observations of potential impairment, leading to an acquittal on both charges.

On a pre-trial Charter application in a multi-accused organized crime prosecution, the applicants sought to prevent disclosure of residential address information in the common disclosure brief.

The court held that immediate disclosure of one applicant’s home address engaged and would arbitrarily infringe his s. 7 rights because there was credible evidence of a prior attempt on his life, disclosure would materially increase the danger to him and his family, and the record did not establish any real present need for co-accused to know the precise address to make full answer and defence.

The court rejected arguments grounded in Stinchcombe, parity among accused, and avoidance of future disclosure litigation.

Relief was denied respecting the father’s address because the evidence did not establish danger to him or a sufficient causal connection.

The Crown was directed to work with defence counsel on redactions, and interim sealing orders were granted.

Srinivasan Venkata Gadam was found guilty of eight counts of sexual assault against A.D. between April and August 2013, exploiting a position of trust within an employment/educational relationship.

The assaults involved threats of harm to the victim and her family, and forced vaginal intercourse.

The court considered aggravating factors including the multiple assaults, abuse of trust, and significant psychological trauma to the victim, as well as mitigating factors such as the defendant's lack of criminal record, good character, and the likely deportation consequences.

The court imposed a sentence of three years' incarceration, along with a 10-year firearm prohibition, a communication ban with the victim and her family, a DNA order, and a 20-year SOIRA order.

The defendant Lumipro Inc. sought summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing the plaintiff Maxrelco Inc. lacked standing as it was a shareholder, not the property owner, and that Lumipro was only hired for repairs, not maintenance.

Maxrelco Inc. brought a cross-motion to amend its Statement of Claim to correct a misnomer, changing the plaintiff to Maxrelco (Immeubles) Inc., the actual property owner.

The court granted Maxrelco's cross-motion, finding it was a misnomer and caused no prejudice to the defendant.

Consequently, the court dismissed Lumipro's summary judgment motion, determining there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the cause of the fire and Lumipro's alleged negligence in sign repair and maintenance.