W. Glenn Orr

The accused brought a Charter application seeking to quash search warrants and exclude evidence obtained from searches of his residences and storage lockers, alleging police misconduct and fabrication of information in the Informations to Obtain (ITOs).

The court rejected the defence theory that police had planted firearms and drugs, finding the accused’s explanation for the incriminating evidence implausible.

However, the court found that the affiant officer deliberately fabricated portions of the ITO, including altering dates and inventing information to strengthen the grounds for the warrants.

Although the remaining evidence could have supported the issuance of the warrants, the deliberate fabrication was found to be so subversive of the prior authorization process that the warrants were quashed.

Applying the framework in Grant, the court excluded the seized guns, drugs, and related evidence under s.24(2) of the Charter due to the seriousness of the police misconduct, while admitting the accused’s voluntary statements to police.

The applicant brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay in bringing serious firearms and drug charges to trial.

The court analyzed multiple periods of delay totaling approximately 57 months from arrest to the anticipated trial start, allocating time among inherent case requirements, defence delay, Crown delay, and institutional delay.

Although the applicant had been incarcerated for most of the period and experienced prejudice to liberty and security interests, the court found that most delay resulted from defence actions or inherent case complexity, including counsel availability and pre-trial litigation.

Institutional and Crown delay totaled approximately 11.5 months, falling within the acceptable Morin guidelines.

The court concluded that the delay was not unreasonable and that the applicant’s right to a fair trial had not been prejudiced.

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after a justice of the peace ordered detention on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds.

The charges involved alleged firearms offences, dangerous driving, and failing to stop for police following an incident in which a shotgun was allegedly discharged and a high‑speed police pursuit ensued.

The applicant proposed a revised release plan involving multiple sureties and electronic monitoring.

The court found serious credibility issues with both the applicant and the proposed surety and concluded the release plan would not adequately mitigate risks of flight or non‑compliance.

The court held that detention remained justified on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds and dismissed the bail review application.

The accused brought a second application seeking a stay of proceedings for abuse of process arising from plea negotiations conducted during a firearms and drug prosecution.

The accused argued that the Crown’s settlement offer—requiring an induced statement recanting prior evidence and implicating defence counsel in knowingly presenting false testimony—constituted prosecutorial misconduct.

The court held that plea negotiation communications were protected by settlement privilege and could not be unilaterally waived by the defence.

The presence of the accused’s father during the discussions did not vitiate the privilege.

Finding no extrinsic evidence of prosecutorial impropriety sufficient to justify piercing the privilege or reviewing the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, the court ruled the evidence of settlement discussions inadmissible and dismissed the application.