S. Stackhouse

The accused were charged with firearm and narcotic offences after police executed search warrants on a vehicle and a residence, discovering a handgun and drugs.

The court previously found that the search warrants were invalid because the information to obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable and probable grounds, violating the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

In this decision, the court applied the Grant framework under s. 24(2) of the Charter and concluded that the police conduct was grossly negligent and misleading.

Given the seriousness of the breach and the impact on the accused's privacy interests, the court excluded both the handgun and the drugs from evidence.

The applicants, charged with firearm and drug offences following the execution of search warrants, brought a Garofoli application to exclude the seized evidence.

Prior to step five of the application, they sought to amplify the Information to Obtain (ITO) based on cross-examination of the affiant and an email.

The court allowed certain amplifications to correct good-faith errors in the ITO, but declined to add omitted information, noting that omissions could still be raised during the substantive argument on the warrant's validity.

The applicants, charged with firearm and drug offences following the execution of search warrants, sought leave to cross-examine the affiant of the Information to Obtain (ITO) under step five of a Garofoli application.

The court applied the Garofoli test, assessing whether there was a reasonable likelihood that cross-examination would elicit testimony tending to discredit the preconditions for the warrants.

The court granted leave to cross-examine on specific issues, including the omission of information regarding the shooter's name and the use of conclusory statements in the ITO, but denied leave on several other grounds where cross-examination was unlikely to assist or where the issues were better suited for argument at the Garofoli hearing.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for impaired driving, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and reached an unreasonable verdict regarding his identity as the driver at a restaurant drive-thru.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made no errors in assessing the identification evidence and that the guilty verdict was entirely reasonable based on the overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

The offender pleaded guilty to sexual interference after performing oral sex on his 3-year-old half-sister while babysitting her.

The Crown sought an 18-month custodial sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence.

The court noted that a conditional sentence was statutorily unavailable and emphasized the need for denunciation and deterrence given the offender's position of trust and the victim's extreme youth.

The court sentenced the offender to 15 months in custody, followed by 3 years of probation, and imposed various ancillary orders including a 20-year SOIRA order.

The accused was charged under s. 212(2) of the Criminal Code with living on the avails of prostitution of a person under eighteen.

The complainant, a sixteen‑year‑old, arranged to engage in prostitution from hotel rooms rented by the accused and paid him a portion of her earnings.

The accused argued he believed the complainant was eighteen and was merely assisting her with accommodation.

The court rejected the accused’s credibility and held he took no reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant’s age as required by s. 150.1(5).

The court concluded that by receiving money earned through prostitution and facilitating the activity by renting hotel rooms, the accused was living on the avails of prostitution.