A. Francis

The applicants, facing charges related to methamphetamine production, brought pre-trial motions to exclude evidence obtained from search warrants and covert video surveillance.

The police had installed a surveillance camera on a neighbouring building to monitor the rear parking lot of a commercial property suspected to be a meth lab.

The court held that the applicants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the commercial parking lot, and thus no warrant was required for the video surveillance.

The court also upheld the validity of the search warrants and found that the dynamic 'no-knock' entry into the residence was justified by safety and evidence preservation concerns.

The applications were dismissed.

The accused applied for disclosure of investigative materials held by the Toronto Police Service Professional Standards Unit relating to investigations of two individuals connected to a large-scale drug investigation known as Project Gladiator.

The Crown argued the records constituted third‑party records requiring an O’Connor application, while the defence asserted they formed part of the fruits of the investigation subject to Stinchcombe disclosure.

The court found the investigations of the two individuals were intertwined with the criminal investigation of the accused and were conducted as part of the same joint police investigation.

Because the materials could assist the defence, including supporting alternate suspect theories, they constituted first‑party disclosure.

The court ordered disclosure under the Stinchcombe regime.

The accused was charged with conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and marijuana and with trafficking offences arising from a police wiretap investigation known as Project Gladiator.

The defence brought a Charter application challenging a Highway Traffic Act stop used to identify the accused as the driver involved in a suspected drug transaction.

The court held the stop did not violate ss. 7, 8, 9, or 10 of the Charter and that, in any event, the identity evidence would be admissible under s. 24(2).

On the merits, the Crown relied largely on circumstantial evidence and surveillance to prove that the accused transported drugs and participated in a conspiracy with two other individuals.

The court found the circumstances highly suspicious but concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that drugs were actually exchanged, that the substance was cocaine or marijuana, or that the accused had the required knowledge for conspiracy to traffic in the specific drugs alleged.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.