T. Hamilton

The offender, a repeat firearms offender, was convicted of multiple offences including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking, and flight from police.

After conviction, the offender cut his ankle bracelet and absconded, leading the court to proceed with sentencing in his absence.

The court applied the jump and totality principles, noting the offender's lengthy record and the serious danger posed by loaded handguns in public, ultimately imposing a global sentence of 15 years imprisonment less pre-trial custody credit.

The accused was stopped by police who claimed to be conducting a random sobriety check.

During the stop, officers smelled burnt cannabis and informed the occupants they would be searched under the Cannabis Control Act.

The accused then fled in his vehicle, striking an officer, and was arrested shortly after.

A loaded handgun, drugs, and ammunition were recovered.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging violations of his ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) rights, and seeking exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2).

The court found that the initial stop was an unlawful pretext stop violating s. 9, and that his s. 10(b) rights were briefly violated.

However, the court upheld the constitutionality of the warrantless search provisions under s. 12 of the Cannabis Control Act and rejected allegations of racial profiling.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2) given the serious nature of the offences and the limited impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests due to his flight.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel production of a medical report following a defence medical examination conducted by a paediatric neurologist.

The defendant refused to produce the report on the basis that the examination was incomplete and that the expert could not provide a fair and objective opinion due to the circumstances of the assessment and subsequent interview.

The court considered Rule 33.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires an examining health practitioner to prepare and provide a written report after conducting an examination.

The court held that once the examination occurred, the rule imposed a mandatory obligation to produce a report, regardless of concerns about completeness.

The expert could qualify the report and explain limitations, but production remained required.

The defendant brought a motion under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act seeking an order requiring the minor plaintiff to attend a psychological assessment by a defence expert following a motor vehicle accident in which the plaintiff alleged traumatic brain injury and psychological impairments.

The plaintiffs argued the request amounted to an impermissible second defence medical examination and alleged concerns regarding the proposed expert’s impartiality.

The court held that further medical examinations may be ordered where necessary for trial fairness and where the proposed assessment involves different expertise from prior examinations.

Considering the plaintiff’s extensive expert evidence and the importance of expert testimony for a young child’s injuries, the court found the further assessment justified.

The court ordered the minor plaintiff to attend the psychological assessment and required the child’s mother to attend and participate in the interview.