Alonzo Abbey

The defendant, Leon Bookal, was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime, stemming from a search warrant executed at his residence.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence to prove constructive possession, while the defendant claimed the cocaine belonged to a friend who was staying at his condominium and had access to his locker.

The court found the police officers' note-taking inadequate and their independent recollections unreliable.

Despite some inconsistencies in the defendant's testimony, the court found his evidence compelling and was left with a reasonable doubt regarding his knowledge of the cocaine and the origin of the cash.

Consequently, the defendant was found not guilty on both counts.

The defendant brought an application to exclude evidence (crack cocaine) found in his condominium, arguing a section 8 Charter breach due to an unlawful strip search conducted at the police station subsequent to his arrest.

The court found a section 8 breach occurred due to the blatant lack of record-keeping regarding the reasons for and the manner in which the strip search was conducted, despite finding reasonable and probable grounds for the search itself and general compliance with most *Golden* guidelines.

However, the court dismissed the application to exclude the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding no temporal, contextual, or causal connection between the strip search breach and the evidence, which was obtained hours earlier under a valid search warrant.

A judicial interim release hearing for an accused charged with aggravated assault, robbery, threatening death, and possession of a knife.

The accused, a 19-year-old refugee claimant with a serious youth record for armed robberies and robberies, was arrested following an incident where a complainant was stabbed and robbed.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The defence proposed three sureties, including the accused's aunt.

The court found that two of the three proposed sureties lacked credibility due to false testimony regarding criminal charges.

The court determined that the plan of release was inadequate given the serious nature of the offence, the accused's criminal history, and the inability of the remaining suitable surety to control him.

The accused was detained on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

The offenders, both members of the 'Young Buck Killas' street gang, were convicted of various firearms and drug trafficking offences committed for the benefit of a criminal organization.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of their extensive criminal records, gang affiliation, and the nationwide scope of the drug enterprise against minimal mitigating factors.

The court sentenced one offender to 12 years and 1 month and the other to 28 months, after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court also ordered delayed parole eligibility for both offenders, requiring them to serve at least half of their sentences.

During a criminal trial for firearms and criminal organization offences, the court ruled on several evidentiary and procedural applications.

The court denied the accused's requests to sit at counsel table rather than the prisoner's dock, citing security concerns and courtroom configuration.

The court admitted voice messages retrieved from an accused's phone that demonstrated a willingness to commit robbery, finding them highly probative of gang association.

The court also delivered mixed rulings on the admissibility of intercepted communications used for voice identification, admitting one as circumstantial evidence of state of mind while excluding others.

The applicants, charged with first-degree murder, brought pre-trial applications to exclude evidence under the Charter.

They alleged arbitrary detention, unreasonable search, and right to counsel violations.

The court found that the initial investigative detentions and arrests were lawful and that the examination of the accused's shoes did not violate section 8.

However, the court found a section 9 violation for both accused because the police deliberately delayed bringing them before a Justice of the Peace within 24 hours in order to obtain statements.

Consequently, the statements made at the police station were excluded under section 24(2).

The expert evidence regarding gunshot residue and footwear impressions was ruled admissible.

The offender pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and several firearm offences after shooting a man in the neck following a birthday party and pointing the gun at the victim's girlfriend.

The Crown sought a 10-year sentence, while the offender sought 6 to 7 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for unprovoked gun violence in a public place.

The court granted enhanced pre-trial custody credit of 1.5 to 1 due to harsh jail conditions and the offender's early intention to plead guilty, resulting in a net sentence of 7 years.

The three accused were arrested while exiting an apartment building and entering a taxi, and each was found in possession of a loaded handgun.

They brought a Charter motion alleging violations of their rights under ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10, arguing they were unlawfully detained and searched.

The court found that the police had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative detention and pat search based on the totality of the circumstances, including the high-crime area, a recent shooting, and the accused's behaviour.

The Charter motions were dismissed, the firearms were admitted into evidence, and the accused were found guilty.