BRACEBRIDGE COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-04 DATE: 20240415 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING – and – NOAH HOPE Applicant

William Barnes, for the Provincial Crown Kimberly Miles for the Federal Crown

Jay Herbert, for the Applicant

HEARD: April 15, 2024

SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR DECISION

HEALEY, J.:

[1] On March 4, 2024, I released a ruling dismissing a Charter application that requested an order excluding all evidence obtained by the police.

[2] The Notice of Application sought a finding that the Applicant’s s. 8 Charter rights had been breached, and an order under s. 24(2) excluding all direct and derivative evidence resulting from the search of the Applicant’s person, backpack and car.

[3] Today’s appearance was arranged at the direction of the lead criminal judge for the Central East Region, Justice Fuerst. Clarification was requested by Mr. Hebert with respect to whether the ruling included the cell phones and information contained on them that were seized from the Applicant at the time of his arrest.

[4] My reasons were deficient in that, after finding that the Applicant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle or its contents and could not assert a breach of his s.8 rights, I did not address the evidence obtained from the search of the Applicant. This was an inadvertent omission that will now be rectified so that the trial process may continue as efficiently as possible. The trial is currently scheduled for one day, to occur on April 19, 2024, although as of today it remains unclear whether further time may be required.

[5] The Applicant was arrested for firearm offences after a handgun was located by the police in the stolen vehicle that the Applicant had been driving. This was a lawful arrest as the presence of the gun provided reasonable and probable grounds to arrest. The search of the Applicant’s pockets incident to arrest was necessary and lawful. The evidence of the arresting officer who searched the Applicant was that three phones were located; one the Applicant had been talking on through much of his initial interactions with the police and two more located in his right front pocket.

[6] Evidence extracted from one or more of these phones, as I understand it, is intended to be used in prosecuting the offences.

[7] There is no basis to exclude the phones or information contained on them under s. 24(2), as no Charter breach has been established.

[8] Nothing in these supplementary reasons changes my initial ruling, which was that the application be dismissed.

The Honourable Madam Justice S.E. Healey

Released: April 15, 2024