Sorina Cojocaru

The accused brought a pre-trial application challenging the constitutionality of a search warrant executed at her residence, which yielded a loaded handgun and crack cocaine.

The warrant relied heavily on information from a confidential source.

After denying the defence's request to cross-examine the affiant and allowing the Crown to rely on step 6 of the Garofoli procedure, the court assessed the facial validity of the Information to Obtain (ITO).

The court found that the police failed to sufficiently corroborate the confidential source's information, rendering the search a violation of the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the seriousness of the breach and its impact on the accused's privacy outweighed society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits, resulting in the exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2).

The accused was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, uttering threats, and breach of probation following a violent attack on his sisters-in-law and niece.

After pleading guilty to aggravated assault and breach of probation, the trial proceeded on the remaining charges.

The accused argued that his severe intoxication negated the specific intent required for attempted murder.

The court found that despite a high blood alcohol concentration, the accused had an operating mind, foresaw the consequences of his actions, and possessed the specific intent to cause death.

The accused was found guilty of attempted murder and uttering threats.

The three accused were charged with firearms and drug offences following a vehicle stop.

They brought Charter applications alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The Crown argued the stop was a valid dual-purpose stop under the Highway Traffic Act.

The court found the officers' testimony lacked credibility and that the HTA rationale was a pretext for an unlawful criminal investigation.

The court concluded the accused were arbitrarily detained and subjected to unreasonable searches.

Given the seriousness of the breaches and the finding that the officers misled the court, the evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in acquittals.