T. Hicks

The applicant sought an order under s. 490(2)(a) of the Criminal Code to extend detention of seized cash, cryptocurrency tokens, digital devices, and financial records in an ongoing pre-charge financial-crime investigation.

The respondent conceded that an extension was warranted but asked for a 30-day period, relying on fairness concerns tied to sealed warrants and limited access to underlying materials.

The court held the inquiry is narrow and directed to the nature and needs of the investigation, not broader review of police conduct, disclosure timing, or investigative pace.

Given the scale of multilingual documentary and digital evidence and anticipated tracing steps, the court found a further nine months justified despite reaching the statutory maximum pre-proceeding detention period under s. 490(3).

The detention order was extended for all seized items.

The appellant appealed his conviction for 'Over 80 care and control' after being found asleep in his parked vehicle, which was blocking a commercial driveway.

The trial judge convicted him on the basis that the vehicle's position created a realistic risk of danger to persons or property, satisfying the third limb of the test for care and control.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding the risk of danger.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusion was a finding of fact supported by the evidence and entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for dangerous driving, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and failed to properly consider evidence suggesting the driving was the result of a momentary lapse.

The appellant also argued the trial judge relied on extrinsic information relating to possible alcohol impairment despite the withdrawal of the excess blood alcohol charge.

The court reviewed the applicable standards of review for factual and legal errors and considered whether the trial judge failed to address potentially exculpatory evidence.

The court held that the trial judge properly considered the evidence, rejected the momentary lapse explanation, and did not rely on extrinsic information.

The conviction was upheld.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on an over‑80 impaired driving charge.

The trial judge had found breaches of s. 8 of the Charter on the basis that the officer failed to prove calibration of the roadside screening device and failed to articulate reasonable grounds for a breath demand, and excluded breath test evidence under s. 24(2).

The appeal court held that proof of calibration is not required for reasonable grounds following a roadside fail and that the officer repeatedly articulated his belief that the offence had been committed.

The court further held that the trial judge failed to properly apply the three‑part analysis under R. v. Grant when excluding the breath evidence.

The breaches, if any, were minor and the societal interest in adjudicating impaired driving offences strongly favoured admission of the breath tests.