Stacey Alexander Taraniuk

The applicant, charged with importing cocaine, sought a stay of proceedings alleging racial profiling by CBSA and RCMP officers under sections 7, 8, 9, 10, and 15 of the Charter.

The court found that Border Services Officer Coughlin did not racially profile the applicant, but Superintendent Ryan did, by relying on a stereotype based on the applicant's national origin (Jamaican-born Canadian travelling to a non-Jamaica Caribbean country) as an indicator of criminality.

This reliance on immutable characteristics was deemed discriminatory.

Consequently, the court found violations of the applicant's s. 7 and s. 15 Charter rights and ordered a stay of proceedings as the appropriate remedy.

The defendant, Shaun Blackman, was charged with intimidation of a justice system participant (an undercover police officer, TK) and uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm to TK, contrary to ss. 423.1(1)(b) and 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The charges stemmed from Instagram posts made by Blackman revealing TK's identity and containing threats, prior to TK testifying at Blackman's preliminary inquiry.

The court found that Blackman was the account holder and that the posts were made by him.

The court concluded that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Blackman intended to provoke fear in TK to impede his duties and that the posts constituted threats of death or bodily harm.

Blackman was found guilty on both counts.

The applicant, Shaun Blackman, charged with threatening death and intimidating a justice participant, brought a pre-trial application under sections 7 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

He alleged that police failed to seize and preserve crucial evidence related to threatening Instagram posts, thereby impairing his right to make full answer and defence.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the police's actions did not constitute unacceptable negligence and that no Charter violation occurred, as the relevant evidence was preserved in substance and the defence retained the ability to challenge it at trial.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision declaring s. 286.3(2) of the Criminal Code, which imposes a mandatory minimum five-year sentence for procuring a prostitute under 18, unconstitutional under s. 12 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal, agreeing with the trial judge's finding that the mandatory minimum was grossly disproportionate for a reasonable hypothetical offender with significantly reduced moral culpability, such as a victim-offender.

The court also addressed the procedural issue of the Crown's premature notice of appeal, finding no prejudice to the respondent.

The appellant appealed convictions for procuring a person under 18 for prostitution and making child pornography, challenging the constitutionality of a cellphone seizure under section 8 of the Charter.

The appeal hinged on the factual determination of whether the arrest occurred in a hotel hallway (lawful) or the hotel room (unlawful).

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the arrest occurred in the hallway, affirming the trial judge's credibility assessment of police officers' evidence despite minor inconsistencies.

The Court found no material misapprehension of evidence or uneven scrutiny, dismissing the appeal.

The accused, Ramsey Safieh, was charged with dangerous operation of a conveyance, failing to comply with probation, and operating a conveyance while prohibited, following a hit-and-run incident.

The sole issue at trial was the identification of the driver.

The court found that the Crown had not proved the identification of the driver beyond a reasonable doubt, despite the officers' credible testimony, due to factors such as brief viewing time in darkness, lack of detailed description, and absence of pre-trial identification procedures.

The circumstantial evidence, including the accused's past address and flight, was found to add little to the Crown's case.

Consequently, all charges were dismissed.

The applicants, facing multiple drug and firearms charges, brought a pre-trial motion alleging various Charter violations during their arrest and the subsequent searches of a vehicle and a residential unit.

The court dismissed the claims regarding arbitrary arrest, search incident to arrest, strip search, and right to counsel, finding the police had reasonable grounds and acted lawfully.

However, the court found that the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant for the residential unit contained materially misleading and inaccurate information.

After excising the misleading details, the court concluded there were insufficient grounds to issue the warrant, resulting in a section 8 Charter breach.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the firearms and drugs found in the unit under section 24(2), citing the seriousness of the police negligence in drafting the ITO.

The appellant was convicted at trial on three counts of trafficking in fentanyl and three counts of knowingly using a forged document.

The charges related to his alleged participation in a scheme to obtain and use forged prescriptions for fentanyl patches.

The central issue at trial was identity—whether the appellant himself attended at the pharmacy to have the prescription filled or whether someone falsely presented himself as the appellant.

The trial judge accepted the evidence of a co-conspirator that the appellant participated in the scheme and rejected the appellant's claim that his health card had been lost or stolen.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the trial judge's failure to assist him as a self-represented accused and claimed misapprehension of evidence.

The Court of Appeal found the trial was fair but allowed the appeal with respect to one trafficking count where there was insufficient evidence.

The accused challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum five-year sentence for procuring a person under 18 to provide sexual services under s. 286.3(2) of the Criminal Code, arguing it violated s. 12 of the Charter.

The court considered reasonable hypothetical scenarios, particularly one involving a youthful sex trade worker who was herself exploited and manipulated, recruiting a 17-year-old friend without financial gain.

The court found that in this hypothetical, an appropriate sentence would be two to 2.5 years, making the five-year mandatory minimum grossly disproportionate and thus a violation of s. 12.

The violation was not justified under s. 1 of the Charter due to a failure of minimal impairment.

The mandatory minimum sentence was declared of no force or effect.

The accused brought a Charter application challenging the lawfulness of his detention, search, and arrest in connection with a series of street robberies in the York Village area.

The court found multiple Charter violations: an unlawful detention without reasonable grounds, an illegal search, and a failure to inform the accused of his right to counsel without delay.

The court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of these violations, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and care or control with excess blood alcohol following a single-vehicle accident on a dark, curving highway.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including the accident itself, odour of alcohol, physical signs of impairment, and admissions by the accused.

The accused claimed the accident was caused by distraction from a text message.

The court found the accused guilty of both offences.

The accused sought Charter remedies for alleged mistreatment during detention, including failure to respond to complaints about handcuffs, loss of property, unnecessary delay in release, and photographing of tattoos.

The court found breaches of the right against arbitrary detention but denied both the stay of proceedings and exclusion of evidence remedies.

The accused was arrested during a high-risk takedown based on information from a confidential informant and police observations of a suspected drug transaction.

A search incident to arrest revealed drugs and a loaded firearm.

The accused applied to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, arguing his ss. 8 and 9 rights were violated because police lacked reasonable grounds for the arrest.

The court found the arrest for firearm possession was unlawful, breaching ss. 8 and 9, but admitted the evidence under s. 24(2) because the police acted in good faith and the evidence was highly reliable.

The court also ruled the accused's utterances to police were voluntary and admissible.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm and drug offences after police stopped his vehicle and discovered small quantities of marijuana and crack cocaine on his person and a loaded revolver hidden behind the vehicle’s dome light.

The Crown alleged the drugs were possessed for the purpose of trafficking and that the accused knowingly possessed the firearm.

The court held that the circumstantial evidence, including a suspected exchange with another vehicle and the presence of a firearm, did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the drugs were intended for trafficking.

The hidden firearm’s location and the accused’s control of the vehicle were insufficient to prove knowledge of the weapon.

The accused was acquitted of all firearm offences and drug trafficking counts but convicted of the included offences of simple possession of marijuana and cocaine.