Sue Szasz

The applicant brought a Charter application under sections 8 and 9, arguing that police violated his rights against unlawful arrest and unreasonable search or seizure, seeking to exclude evidence of illegal substances found during his arrest.

The court found the initial arrest under the Trespass to Property Act was lawful, as the police acted reasonably based on the tenant's request to remove the applicant and his subsequent refusal to leave or identify himself.

The search incident to arrest for identification purposes was also deemed reasonable and lawful, ceasing once the applicant's identity was confirmed.

Consequently, the application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The applicant, Ernest Gyamfy, brought a Section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to anticipated end of trial was 701 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court cases.

The court deducted 59 days for defence delay related to retaining counsel but found no other defence delay.

The Crown argued for deductions based on Covid-19 and case complexity as exceptional circumstances.

The court found that Covid-19 did not cause any actual delay in this specific case, nor was the case particularly complex.

The court also noted that the Crown could have remedied the delay caused by the co-accused's inaction by severing the accused.

As the Crown failed to rebut the presumption of unreasonable delay, the court found a breach of the applicant's Section 11(b) rights and stayed the charges.

The defence sought to quash search warrants for a vehicle and two residences, alleging police subversion of the pre-authorization process and insufficient evidence in the Information to Obtain (ITO) after excising inaccuracies.

The court found that the affiant's statements regarding tracking data and landlord information were misleading and inaccurate, leading to a Section 8 Charter breach concerning the search of one residence (350 Church Street).

However, the court did not find deliberate intent to mislead sufficient to quash all warrants for subversion of the process.

The warrants for the Sandison Street address and the vehicle remained valid.

The defence brought an application challenging the facial validity of a tracking warrant and multiple search warrants, alleging a breach of the Applicant's Section 8 Charter rights and seeking exclusion of seized evidence under Section 24(2).

In the alternative, the Applicant sought leave to cross-examine the affiant.

The court dismissed the application challenging the warrants' facial validity, finding that the Information to Obtain (ITO) provided sufficient credible and reliable evidence for the issuing justice to find reasonable and probable grounds.

The court applied the R. v. Debot factors for assessing confidential informant information, concluding the information was credible, compelling, and sufficiently corroborated.

While the warrants were upheld, the court granted leave to cross-examine the affiant on several specific areas, applying the R. v. Garofoli test, to ensure the Applicant could make full answer and defence.

Two accused pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic in cannabis marijuana and related drug offences.

The court imposed sentences of six months custody for Mireault and nine months custody for Wray, both followed by two years probation.

The sentencing considered the accused's roles in the conspiracy, their personal circumstances, rehabilitation prospects, and the need for deterrence and denunciation in drug trafficking cases.

Ancillary orders included firearms prohibitions, DNA orders, victim fine surcharges, and forfeiture of property.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana for the purposes of trafficking.

Following a search warrant, approximately 27 pounds of marijuana was discovered in a storage locker at Guardian Storage in Windsor, Ontario, and an additional 1,794 grams was found in a second storage locker at UHaul Moving and Storage in Tecumseh.

The accused was a first-time offender, 21 years old at the time of the offence, attending university and experiencing financial difficulties.

The court imposed a sentence of six months custody followed by two years' probation, along with collateral orders including a mandatory section 109 firearms prohibition for 10 years, DNA order, forfeiture order, and victim fine surcharge.

The accused brought a Dawson Application seeking leave to cross-examine the affiant and sub-affiant (two police officers) on a search warrant at the preliminary inquiry.

The accused argued that cross-examination was necessary to enable full answer and defence and to explore the sufficiency of the warrant for potential Charter breach arguments.

The Crown did not intend to call these officers as part of their case.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the preliminary inquiry's primary purpose is to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to commit the accused to trial, not to serve as a discovery mechanism for Charter-related issues.

The court found that while the defence has broad latitude to cross-examine Crown witnesses, the scope of witnesses the defence may call is limited to matters relevant to the inquiry itself.