Shaunna Kelly

The Crown brought a bail review application to vacate a release order for the accused, who was charged with criminal harassment and uttering threats against a former intimate partner.

The court found a material change in circumstances because the original justice of the peace was provided with an incorrect, less serious criminal record.

Conducting a de novo hearing, the court analyzed the 'substantial likelihood' standard for detention on the secondary ground.

Despite the accused's lengthy criminal record, the court concluded the Crown did not meet its burden and ordered the accused released on strict conditions with a surety.

The accused was charged with possession of marijuana and heroin for the purpose of trafficking and breach of bail conditions.

The accused argued that police violated his Charter rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) when an officer approached him, obtained marijuana he voluntarily produced, arrested him, and searched his backpack.

The court held that the initial interaction did not amount to detention and therefore did not trigger the right to counsel.

The arrest for possession of marijuana was lawful despite arguments regarding s. 495(2) of the Criminal Code, relying on authority that s. 495(3) deems such arrests lawful for Criminal Code proceedings.

The brief delay of less than two minutes in providing rights to counsel was justified for officer and public safety.

The challenged evidence was admitted and the accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused, charged with firearms and drug offences, brought applications to cross-examine the affiant and sub-affiants of an Information to Obtain (ITO) a wiretap authorization, and a Garofoli application to exclude the intercepted communications.

The applicants argued that the ITO relied heavily on confidential informants and lacked sufficient detail to establish reasonable and probable grounds.

The court dismissed the application to cross-examine, finding no evidentiary basis to suggest it would elicit testimony discrediting the statutory preconditions.

The court also dismissed the Garofoli application, concluding that the redacted ITO and judicial summary provided sufficient evidence to establish reasonable and probable grounds to believe the interceptions would afford evidence of the offences.