Andrew Eric Stastny

In a criminal trial for possession for the purpose of trafficking, the defendant alleged police planted drugs.

The Crown did not call Officer Dobbs, a search team member facing an outstanding assault charge (ABH) from an unrelated incident where a prior judge made negative credibility findings against him.

The defence sought to call Officer Dobbs and cross-examine him on the ABH charge details to impeach his credibility.

The court ruled that the defence could call Officer Dobbs and cross-examine him from the outset, citing the interests of justice and the Crown's strategic decision not to call him.

However, the scope of cross-examination on the ABH charge details was limited by the collateral fact rule and the principle against introducing prior judicial credibility findings (Ghorvei), preventing the jury from inferring guilt or prior disbelief.

The defendant, a 19-year-old first-time offender, pleaded guilty to trafficking in cocaine on January 16, 2015, with two additional trafficking incidents read in on consent.

The Crown sought an intermittent custody sentence, while the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court found exceptional circumstances existed based on the defendant's difficult background, including childhood trauma, abuse, and displacement, combined with demonstrated rehabilitation efforts post-offence.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with a two-year probation term, finding that custody would jeopardize rehabilitation and that protection of the public was better served by a non-custodial sentence.

The accused brought a Charter application under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking a stay of proceedings for assault contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code.

The accused alleged that his right to be tried within a reasonable time had been violated due to institutional delay of 449 days (approximately 15 months) between the information being sworn and the scheduled trial date.

The court found that the delay exceeded the Morin guidelines of 8 to 10 months and that the accused had suffered actual prejudice including stress from the adjourned trial date, employer oversight of criminal proceedings, restrictions on access to his daughter, and increased legal fees.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence obtained during a search of his residence pursuant to a telewarrant issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The applicant challenged the constitutional validity of the search warrant, alleging violations of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the Information to Obtain (ITO), as redacted to protect a confidential informant, fell short of constitutional standards.

The ITO relied on information from an untested confidential source whose tip lacked sufficient detail and compelling information.

Police corroboration was limited to confirmation of innocent facts.

The court applied the "three Cs" test (compelling, credible, corroborated) and found significant deficiencies in all three areas.

Additionally, the court found the ITO lacked evidence of currency regarding the alleged ongoing drug trafficking.

The court also found the affiant's conduct in preparing the ITO fell toward the serious end of the misconduct spectrum due to selective disclosure of the confidential informant's criminal record, misleading characterization of the applicant's prior charges as "offences," failure to determine the status of prior drug charges, and lack of diligence in corroborating key claims.

Under section 24(2) of the Charter, the court excluded the seized evidence, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following a search warrant execution at a residential premise.

The Crown's case relied on two incriminatory statements allegedly made by the accused and circumstantial evidence.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the voluntariness of both statements.

The first statement was made in the basement during the warrant execution; the second was video-recorded at the police station approximately one hour later.

The court found both statements involuntary due to improper inducements offered by police regarding lenient treatment of the accused's pregnant wife in exchange for his confession.

With both statements excluded, the court assessed the sufficiency of the remaining circumstantial evidence and found it insufficient to support committal to trial.

The accused was discharged on both charges.

The Crown charged two accused with possession of a handgun found in a vehicle during the Beaches Jazz Festival in Toronto.

A handgun was discovered under the rear driver's side floor mat of a black motor vehicle after police responded to a 911 call reporting suspicious activity.

The Crown argued that circumstantial evidence established that both accused had knowledge and control of the handgun.

The defence contended that two other individuals who were released from investigative detention may have been the only persons with knowledge of the weapon.

The court found that while there was a probability the accused knew of the handgun's existence, the Crown failed to establish knowledge and control beyond a reasonable doubt.

The competing inferences—that either the accused or the two released individuals knew of the handgun—created reasonable doubt.

Both accused were acquitted.

The accused was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, possession of marijuana over 30 grams, and possession of proceeds of crime.

Police officers stopped and detained the accused in an alley near Queen Street West and Tecumseh Avenue in Toronto based on suspicions arising from observing two individuals in an alcove.

During a pat-down search, officers discovered 86.75 grams of marijuana.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude the evidence, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the detention was unlawful, the search was unlawful, and there was a breach of the right to counsel.

Applying the R v. Grant test, the court excluded the evidence and dismissed all charges.

The accused was convicted of trafficking in a substance held out to be cocaine and possession of the proceeds of crime.

At sentencing, the Crown sought the mandatory minimum punishment of one year imprisonment pursuant to section 5(3)(a)(i)(D) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, based on the accused's prior trafficking conviction.

The defence objected on the grounds that inadequate notice was given, arguing that written notice was required rather than the verbal notice provided at a pre-trial.

The court rejected this argument and imposed the mandatory minimum sentence.

Two accused were tried for robbery with a firearm, unlawful confinement, and related offences arising from a home invasion robbery.

The complainant testified that four men forced entry into her residence, displayed firearms, searched the premises, and confined the occupants.

The court accepted the complainant’s evidence that the accused participated in the robbery and confinement but found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearms were real rather than imitation.

Both accused were therefore convicted of the included offence of robbery and unlawful confinement.

One accused was also convicted of uttering threats after evidence established he used a phone linked to threatening calls made to the complainant.