Alexia Bystrzycki

The applicants were stopped for a traffic violation and subsequently investigated for a stolen vehicle.

The police arrested the driver for driving under suspension, detained the passenger, and searched the vehicle based on the smell of burnt marijuana and the presence of two roaches, locating a loaded handgun and drugs.

The court found multiple Charter breaches, including arbitrary detention, unreasonable search, and delay in providing rights to counsel, as the officers lacked reasonable grounds for the stolen vehicle investigation and the vehicle search.

The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a sentence imposed by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal granted leave and allowed the appeal, determining that a conditional sentence was a fit sentence, aligning with what the trial judge would have imposed had it been available.

The terms of the conditional sentence were to be prepared and released subsequently.

The applicant brought a Garofoli application challenging the validity of a search warrant for his residence, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient grounds and contained misleading information about him 'sheltering' his address.

The police relied on a confidential informant's tip and surveillance showing the applicant engaging in drug transactions after leaving his residence.

The court found that the affiant's assertion that the applicant was sheltering his address was not misleading, even though the applicant was on bail with a surety at a different address.

The court concluded that the issuing justice could reasonably have granted the warrant based on the amplified record and dismissed the Charter section 8 application.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a four-year sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence or two years.

The court found that a four-year sentence was appropriate given the significant quantities of drugs involved.

However, the court granted enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, strict bail conditions, a s. 10(b) Charter breach regarding the right to counsel, and the harshness of serving a sentence during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The final sentence imposed was three years in custody.

This consolidated appeal addressed the admissibility of evidence obtained through a wiretap authorization granted in 2016 for a 2009 murder investigation.

The Court of Appeal found that the authorization was improperly granted due to a lack of reasonable and probable grounds, as the affidavit failed to establish a credible-based probability that interceptions would yield evidence of the long-dormant homicide or that other investigative procedures were unlikely to succeed.

The court emphasized that a generic investigative plan and unsupported inferences of continued association among targets after several years were insufficient.

Consequently, the interceptions constituted a serious breach of Charter s. 8 rights.

Applying the Grant framework, the court upheld the exclusion of the evidence under Charter s. 24(2) due to the seriousness of the state conduct and the significant impact on privacy interests.

The appeals from conviction were allowed, and acquittals were entered, while the appeals from acquittal were dismissed.

The accused was found guilty of trafficking in cocaine and possession of the proceeds of crime following a dial-a-dope undercover investigation.

He brought an application to stay the proceedings on the basis of entrapment, arguing the police lacked reasonable suspicion before offering to buy drugs.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the accused's use and understanding of drug subculture slang during two phone calls with the undercover officer established the requisite reasonable suspicion before the opportunity to commit the offence was provided.

The appellant appealed his convictions for drug-related offences and his sentence.

The primary issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred in finding the Information to Obtain (ITO) for search warrants was sufficient and whether evidence obtained from a warrantless swab of his car door handle should have been excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal found that the warrantless swabbing of the car door handles, followed by chemical analysis, constituted an unreasonable search under section 8 of the Charter, requiring prior judicial authorization.

However, the Court upheld the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence under section 24(2), deferring to the trial judge's assessment of the Grant factors, particularly the police's good faith and full disclosure.

The Court also dismissed the appeal against sentence, finding the six-year consecutive sentence (resulting in a total of 16 years) was not demonstrably unfit given the serious nature of the drug trafficking enterprise and the appellant's conduct while on bail.

The accused, Evans Okwara, was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and unlawfully importing heroin into Canada.

The Crown presented evidence including cell phone records showing knowledge of the shipment details and searches related to the delivery address, as well as a storage locker access card found in the accused's wallet, which contained additional heroin.

The accused's testimony denying knowledge and involvement was found to be inconsistent with the evidence.

The court applied the R. v. W.(D.) framework and found the accused guilty on both counts, concluding that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly possessed and imported heroin for trafficking.

Siavash Norouzian was charged with heroin trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of an undercover officer, Detective Constable Gazey, and Sergeant Sutton.

However, forensic phone data contradicted Detective Constable Gazey's sworn evidence regarding phone calls, voice identification, and text messages, leading the court to find him not credible and unreliable.

Sergeant Sutton's evidence was also deemed unreliable due to lost notes and delayed report writing.

The court emphasized the importance of reliable forensic evidence in challenging police testimony and the Crown's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Given the significant credibility and reliability issues with the key Crown witnesses, Mr. Norouzian was acquitted of all charges.

Appeal from conviction and sentence.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's treatment of hearsay evidence, application of the W.D. test for assessing credibility, and delay in giving reasons.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly acknowledged hearsay limitations, correctly applied the W.D. test by considering the totality of evidence and burden of proof, and that any delay in reasons was justified by efforts to accommodate the parties.

The appeal was dismissed.