Tanya Louise Carlton

The applicant, Christie Ann Culotta, faced five counts related to impaired and dangerous operation of a vessel causing bodily harm.

Both the Crown and defence brought pre-trial applications.

The Crown sought to admit utterances and a written statement as voluntary.

The defence sought to exclude these statements and evidence derived from seized blood samples and medical records, alleging breaches of Charter rights (ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b)).

The court ruled that the applicant's utterances in the ambulance and her subsequent written statement were voluntary and admissible.

However, the court found that the sealing of additional blood vials by police, with the lab technician's involvement, constituted an unlawful and warrantless seizure in violation of the applicant's s. 8 Charter rights, and this evidence was excluded under s. 24(2).

The court also found that the initial arrest for impaired operation lacked reasonable and probable grounds, but this did not lead to the exclusion of the statements.

The search warrant for medical records was upheld as valid.

The offender was convicted of armed robbery of a pharmacy, assault with a weapon, wearing a mask, and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The offender struck the pharmacist with a handgun and stole opioids.

The court considered the offender's youth, criminal record, and the vulnerability of pharmacies.

A global sentence of 6 years was imposed, consisting of 5.5 years for robbery, concurrent sentences for assault and wearing a mask, and a consecutive 6-month sentence for the firearms prohibition breach, less credit for pre-trial custody.

The appellant sought to quash convictions for sexual interference arising from allegations that he repeatedly touched a child complainant under her clothing during family tickling incidents at a cottage.

The appeal argued that the trial reasons were insufficiently responsive to the defence theory of mistake, that the trial judge materially misapprehended the evidence, and that demeanour evidence was given undue weight.

Applying the functional sufficiency-of-reasons approach and reviewing the credibility analysis, the court held that the trial judge adequately addressed the live issues, made no material misapprehension, and did not over-rely on demeanour.

The appeal was dismissed and the surrender order was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding the respondent police officer not guilty of neglect of duty.

The appellant alleged that the officer failed to promptly arrest her ex-husband and seize his firearms following her report of a domestic assault.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's conclusions were supported by the evidence.

The Commission held that the officer exercised his discretion reasonably given the circumstances, including the appellant's primary desire to retrieve her belongings and her request that her ex-husband not be arrested in front of their son.

The Commission also rejected the appellant's arguments that the hearing process was procedurally flawed.

The appellant appealed a finding of not guilty of neglect of duty by a Hearing Officer with respect to a police sergeant.

The appellant alleged the sergeant neglected his duty by failing to promptly arrest her ex-husband for domestic assault and seize his firearms.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by the evidence and that the sergeant acted reasonably and professionally in handling the situation, given the appellant's primary concern at the time was retrieving her belongings rather than immediate fear.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding the respondent police sergeant not guilty of neglect of duty.

The appellant alleged the sergeant failed to promptly arrest her ex-husband and seize his firearms following her report of a domestic assault.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by the evidence, noting that the appellant's primary concern at the time was retrieving her belongings, not immediate fear, and that the sergeant exercised reasonable discretion in the circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed.