3 total
Application for release of seized funds granted; accused proved lack of other means for legal expenses.
The accused, charged with drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, applied under s. 462.34 of the Criminal Code for the release of seized funds to pay for his reasonable legal expenses.
The Crown opposed, arguing the accused failed to prove he had no other assets or means, including Legal Aid.
The court found the accused met his onus, noting his lengthy incarceration, lack of employment, and reliable hearsay evidence that he did not qualify for Legal Aid.
The court approved the release of $44,055.88 to cover the reasonable legal fees of his current counsel at a rate of $325 per hour.
Charter application to exclude drug evidence dismissed; passenger's detention and search incident to arrest were lawful.
The accused, a passenger in a vehicle stopped by police during a traffic investigation, brought a Charter application to exclude drug evidence found during a search incident to arrest.
The accused argued his rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10 of the Charter were violated.
The court found that the accused was not detained until an officer directed him to stop moving his hands, at which point the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him based on the smell of marijuana and the accused's suspicious movements.
The court concluded the search was lawful as incident to arrest and that a brief delay in providing right to counsel did not violate s. 10.
The Charter application was dismissed.
The court convicted the accused of driving over 80, finding that his compliance with the breath demand demonstrated his understanding despite the officer's failure to note his verbal response.
The accused was charged with Over 80 contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code arising from an incident on March 16, 2013 in Ottawa.
The sole issue was whether the Crown established that the accused understood the demand under section 254(3) of the Criminal Code.
The defence argued that the officer's failure to record the accused's response to the demand in his notes meant the Crown failed to establish this pre-condition to admissibility of the breath sample evidence.
The court found that the officer's testimony that the accused indicated understanding, combined with the accused's compliance with the demand without confusion, was sufficient to establish understanding.
The court declined to follow R. v. Brown and found the demand was sufficiently expressed and understood.
The accused was found guilty.
