Scott Arnold

The accused brought a Charter application challenging the lawfulness of police conduct during the execution of search warrants at his residence and the subsequent search of his cellular phone.

The court found multiple violations of sections 8 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including: an unreasonable manner of executing the search warrant at the residence; a warrantless search of the cellular phone; execution of a phone search warrant outside its authorized time frame; and failure to provide the accused with his right to counsel immediately upon arrest.

The court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of these breaches under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused, Daniel Bogdanic, was charged with "Over 80" under the Criminal Code.

He alleged two breaches of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel: first, that the arresting officer, Sgt. Brett Moore, failed to advise him of his rights "without delay" by prioritizing note-taking and other non-urgent matters; and second, that Sgt. Moore failed to ensure he understood his right to counsel of choice.

The court found that the "without delay" requirement was breached due to the officer's erroneous understanding and prioritization of other tasks, which was deemed a serious and potentially systemic violation.

However, the court found no breach regarding the understanding of the right to counsel, as the accused had understood his options but chose to defer.

Applying the s. 24(2) Grant test, the court concluded that admitting the breath samples, despite their reliability and importance to the Crown's case, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute given the seriousness and systemic nature of the Charter breach and its moderate impact on the accused's interests.

Consequently, the breath samples were excluded, leading to a finding of not guilty.

The applicant, D.P., sought a review of a detention order for multiple sexual assault charges.

The Crown conceded that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances, requiring a de novo review of the detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found the proposed bail plan, even with electronic monitoring and increased surety, insufficient to address public safety concerns given the nature of the alleged serial sexual assaults and the sureties' inability to supervise.

The court also found that releasing the applicant would erode public confidence in the administration of justice due to the gravity of the offences, the strong Crown case, and the horrifying circumstances, despite the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on detention centers.

The application for review of the detention order was dismissed.

The applicant, P.S., sought a review of a detention order.

The Crown conceded that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances, allowing for a de novo bail review.

The applicant proposed a new release plan with three sureties, strict house arrest, and electronic monitoring.

The court distinguished the case from R. v. Hastings, noting the applicant's lack of criminal record, time spent in custody, and the general increased risk of COVID-19 in detention facilities.

The court found the proposed plan, including significant surety pledges and electronic monitoring, sufficient to address secondary ground concerns.

The applicant was released on strict conditions.

The Crown sought to admit utterances made by the accused, Najib Amin, during an undercover police operation in his first-degree murder trial.

The defence opposed admission, citing principles from R. v. Hart.

The court, applying the Hart factors as a framework, found the utterances admissible, concluding that their probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect and that police conduct did not constitute an abuse of process.

The ruling specifically addressed four categories of utterances, finding them all admissible with one requiring a specific instruction to mitigate prejudice.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash his committal to stand trial for first degree murder following a preliminary inquiry.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on motive, opportunity, and after-the-fact conduct.

The reviewing court applied the test for committal, assessing whether there was any evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably convict.

The court found that the combined evidence of the accused's motive, presence in the building, and attempts to conceal his identity was reasonably capable of supporting an inference of guilt.

The application for certiorari was dismissed.

The accused, Daniel Stojanovski and Darko Stojanovski, were found guilty by a jury of attempted murder and discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life.

The charges stemmed from a cold-blooded shooting in a residential neighbourhood that left the victim, Nassundu Williams, an incomplete quadriplegic.

The Crown sought a life sentence, while the defence proposed 12 to 15 years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the use of loaded handguns in a populated area and the catastrophic harm to the victim, and mitigating factors such as Darko Stojanovski being a first offender and both accused having family support and taking rehabilitative steps during pre-sentence detention.

Enhanced credit for pre-sentence detention, including additional credit for harsh lockdown conditions, was granted.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary objectives.

The accused was charged with 28 counts relating to the robbery of an unmarked police vehicle, including theft of firearms, ammunition, and police equipment.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on a handprint on a package of paper and the accused's subsequent arrest in a stolen vehicle containing some of the stolen items.

The court found the forensic evidence unreliable and concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control of the stolen items or committed the robbery.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

During a criminal trial for firearms-related offences, the accused challenged the admissibility of a videotaped police statement on the basis that it was involuntary.

The voir dire focused on whether police made threats or inducements suggesting that other detainees would be released if the accused accepted responsibility for a firearm.

The court applied the voluntariness test from R. v. Oickle and assessed conflicting testimony from the accused and a police officer regarding their interaction in the holding cells.

Due to minimal police notes, the absence of recordings of the critical interaction, and gaps in the evidentiary record, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary.

The statement was ruled inadmissible, effectively preventing the prosecution from continuing.

In a mid-trial voir dire in a robbery prosecution, the court determined whether an accused's statement to police was admissible.

Applying the voluntariness framework for statements to persons in authority, the court held there was credible evidence the impugned statement was made and that ultimate reliability disputes were for the trier of fact at trial.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary, emphasizing the absence of threats, coercion, or promises and the proximity of a consultation with duty counsel.

The defence argument that non-recording rendered the statement inherently suspect was rejected on the facts and governing appellate authority.

The statement was admitted into evidence.

The accused was charged with robbery after presenting a demand note to a bank teller and taking approximately $400.

He admitted committing the robbery but argued he acted under duress, claiming an unknown armed individual in a vehicle forced him to carry out the offence and threatened to shoot his friend if he refused.

The court held that s. 17 of the Criminal Code excludes the defence of duress for robbery and that, absent a constitutional challenge, the statutory exclusion remained operative.

In the alternative, the court assessed the common law defence of duress and rejected it, finding the accused’s testimony not credible and concluding that the alleged threats were fabricated and unsupported by the evidence.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the robbery voluntarily.