S. Kumaresan

The applicant brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his s. 8 and s. 9 rights following his arrest and the search of his home, seeking exclusion of a firearm under s. 24(2).

Police had intercepted communications indicating a firearm transaction and followed the seller to the applicant's residence.

When police attempted to arrest the men in the driveway, they fled into the house.

The court found the arrest and search incident to arrest were lawful, and the warrantless entry into the home was justified by hot pursuit and exigent circumstances.

The application was dismissed.

Following his conviction for child luring, the applicant brought an entrapment application seeking a stay of proceedings.

The conviction arose from a police sting operation targeting individuals seeking juvenile prostitutes on an online classifieds website.

The court found that the police had a reasonable suspicion to investigate the virtual space and that the undercover officer introduced the poster's underage status early in the conversation, distinguishing the case from others where entrapment was found.

The application was dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, flight from police, and possession of a prohibited firearm while prohibited.

He fled from police in a vehicle and on foot, discarding a loaded handgun with a removed serial number.

At the time, he was subject to a lifetime weapons prohibition.

Accepting a joint submission, the court sentenced the offender to four years in custody, leaving 22 months and 15 days to serve after accounting for pre-sentence custody and lockdown credits.

The applicants, who were charged with criminal offences and elected trial by jury before the Bill C-75 amendments came into force, brought pre-trial applications seeking a ruling that the amendments eliminating peremptory challenges did not apply retrospectively to them.

The court applied the framework from Dineley and concluded that the elimination of peremptory challenges affects the substantive right to a trial by jury under s. 11(f) of the Charter.

As a result, the court held that the amendments operate only prospectively, and the applicants were entitled to exercise peremptory challenges at their upcoming trials.

The Crown sought to admit a video and audio statement given by the accused to the police following his arrest for aggravated assault.

The defence argued the statement was involuntary due to oppressive conditions, sleep deprivation, and police trickery, including the use of the Reid Technique and false evidence.

The court found that while the police officer lied to the accused about the evidence against him, the overall circumstances of the interrogation were not oppressive.

The court concluded the Crown met its heavy burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary and admissible.