Amanda Delcy Hauk

The appellant was convicted of drug trafficking following a search of his residence conducted pursuant to a warrant issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The warrant did not specify a date for execution but authorized entry "at any time." The appellant appealed, arguing the warrant was invalid because it failed to specify an execution date, rendering the search a violation of Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that while the warrant did not expressly state an execution date, an execution date could be implied from the date of issuance.

The court rejected the appellant's characterization of the warrant as expressly non-expiring and held that the absence of an express date was a technical fault that did not invalidate the warrant.

The defendant corporation brought a motion to quash counts 10 and 11 of an information charging it with offences under the Canada Labour Code.

The defendant argued the counts were defective because they failed to specify which prescribed regulations had been breached, contrary to the principles established in R v Wis Developments.

The Crown sought to amend the counts to allege breaches of section 124 rather than section 125 of the Act.

The court found the counts were fatally deficient in failing to identify the specific regulations allegedly breached, but permitted amendment to reframe the charges under section 124 as a single statutory duty to ensure employee health and safety, rather than specific regulatory violations.

The applicant challenged the validity of a search warrant issued under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking to exclude evidence of a marijuana grow operation discovered at 277 Birkdale Road in Toronto.

The warrant was based on a Crime Stoppers tip, hydro consumption records showing a cyclical pattern consistent with indoor cultivation, police observations including a snow-free roof patch, and information that the applicant previously held a medical marijuana production license.

The court dismissed the application, finding that reasonable and probable grounds existed for the warrant's issuance based on the totality of the circumstances, particularly the distinctive cyclical hydro consumption pattern corroborated by police investigation.