3 total
Evidence excluded and accused acquitted after court finds vehicle stop was a pretextual arbitrary detention.
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.
The accused received a conditional discharge for operating an illegal medical marijuana dispensary prior to legalization.
The accused pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana under 3 kg for the purpose of trafficking.
He operated an illegal marijuana dispensary in Toronto that he claimed was intended to serve only medical users.
The Crown sought a $25,000 fine and two-year probation, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.
The court imposed a conditional discharge with one year of probation and 100 hours of community service, finding that while the operation posed risks of community harm, no actual harm occurred, the accused's motivation was primarily to help medical users, and he had ceased operations and demonstrated rehabilitation.
The court granted a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay exceeding the Jordan ceiling in a simple, severable case.
The applicant sought a stay of proceedings for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, alleging a violation of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.
The total delay was 36 months, with a net delay of 34.5 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.
The court found that despite the applicant's complacency in moving matters forward, the Crown failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or justify the delay under the transitional Morin framework, particularly given the simplicity of the applicant's case and his expressed disinterest in a lengthy Garofoli application pursued by co-accused.
The court granted the stay.
