Allen Gabriel Pancer

The accused brought a Charter s. 8 application challenging the validity of search warrants executed at an apartment and a vehicle, which resulted in the seizure of a loaded handgun and controlled substances.

The accused argued that the affiant of the Information to Obtain (ITO) failed to make full, frank, and fair disclosure, fabricated surveillance evidence, and relied on an unreliable confidential informant.

The court conducted a sub-facial review, excising some erroneous information and amplifying the ITO with omitted facts.

The court found that the affiant was occasionally sloppy but did not deliberately mislead the issuing justice.

Applying the Debot criteria, the court concluded that the confidential informant's tip was sufficiently compelling, credible, and corroborated.

The court held that the amplified ITO provided reasonable grounds to issue the warrants and declined to exercise its residual discretion to set them aside, dismissing the application.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings based on alleged prosecutorial and police misconduct, arguing that the conduct breached his right to a fair trial under sections 7 and 24(1) of the Charter, or violated his right to make full answer and defence.

The court reviewed the legal principles for a stay of proceedings, including the two categories of abuse of process (trial fairness and residual category) and the three-part test from R. v. Babos.

The court found that while mistakes were made by the Crown and police regarding disclosure and a Zoom meeting incident, there was no deliberate misconduct.

The court concluded that the applicant's right to a fair trial was not infringed, nor was the integrity of the justice system undermined.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The accused was charged with firearm and drug offences after police executed search warrants at an apartment and a vehicle.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude a statement made to police and real evidence seized, alleging violations of his s. 10(a) and 10(b) rights and arguing the statement was involuntary.

The court found the statement was voluntary and that the police facilitated access to counsel at the first reasonable opportunity.

However, the court found a s. 10(b) violation occurred when police failed to restate the right to counsel after discovering drugs in the vehicle, which significantly changed the accused's jeopardy.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that excluding the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The court analyzed the total delay, defence delay, and exceptional circumstances, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the trial going longer than expected.

The court found that the net delay, after accounting for defence delay and exceptional circumstances, fell below the presumptive ceiling.

The applicant failed to demonstrate sustained efforts to expedite proceedings or that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The application was dismissed.