Yashar Tahmassebipour

The accused, Curtis Morrison, was charged with obstructing police, possession of cocaine, and various firearm offences after a search incident to arrest.

Morrison alleged racial profiling, arbitrary detention (s. 9 Charter), and unreasonable search (s. 8 Charter), seeking exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found insufficient evidence of racial profiling.

However, it found that the initial arrest based on an unverified "tax warrant" from Quebec was unlawful, breaching s. 9.

Consequently, the subsequent search of his vehicle, which was not incident to a lawful arrest and lacked other legal authority, breached s. 8.

Applying the Grant framework, the court determined that the seriousness of the police misconduct and the significant impact on the accused's Charter rights outweighed society's interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits, leading to the exclusion of the gun and cocaine evidence.

In the alternative, the court also found that the Crown had not proven possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found not guilty on all counts.

The offender, an Indigenous woman, was found guilty of robbery after participating in a planned home invasion to steal fentanyl from a vulnerable 67-year-old victim.

The Crown sought 21-24 months in custody, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

Applying Gladue principles and considering the offender's significant rehabilitation, lack of future risk, and the recent Sharma decision allowing conditional sentences in these circumstances, the court imposed a 24-month conditional sentence followed by 12 months of probation.

The defendant was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, contrary to section 253 of the Criminal Code.

The sole issue at trial was whether the police violated the defendant's right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter.

The defendant claimed she was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to exercise her right to counsel and sought exclusion of the breath sample evidence under section 24(2).

The court found that the defendant was properly informed of her right to counsel, understood this right, but failed to exercise reasonable diligence in attempting to retain counsel.

The defendant repeatedly claimed to have a lawyer but could not identify one, refused to pursue duty counsel despite being informed of this option, and engaged in what appeared to be deliberate delay tactics.

The court dismissed the Charter motion and found the defendant guilty.

The defendant was charged with impaired care or control and over 80 care or control after being found asleep in his vehicle with the engine running in a parking lot.

The defendant claimed he had no intention to drive because he had called a friend to pick him up and fell asleep while waiting.

The Crown relied on the statutory presumption under s. 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The court found the defendant's evidence regarding his plan was not credible and that he failed to rebut the presumption on a balance of probabilities.

Even if the presumption had been rebutted, the court found the Crown proved actual care or control beyond a reasonable doubt based on the realistic risk the defendant could change his mind and drive while impaired.

The defendant was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit (over 80) contrary to the Criminal Code.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of the approved screening device (ASD) test result, arguing that the demand for the breath sample was not made "forthwith" as required by law, thereby violating his Charter rights.

The Crown established that the defendant was stopped at 11:11 PM, the ASD demand was made at 11:12 PM, and the device was presented at 11:18 PM—a six-minute delay.

The court found no realistic opportunity for the defendant to consult with counsel within this timeframe and determined that the police complied with the statutory requirements.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed and the defendant was found guilty.