Andrew Hrivnak

The accused was charged with possession of cannabis for the purpose of exportation contrary to section 11(2) of the Cannabis Act.

On September 1, 2023, the accused attended at Pearson Airport with two checked bags containing 29.77 kilograms of cannabis destined for export to the United Kingdom.

The central issue was whether the accused had knowledge that the bags contained cannabis.

The trial began as a jury trial but was converted to a judge-alone trial mid-trial due to disclosure issues regarding text messages.

The court found that while the accused's credibility was questionable, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew the bags contained cannabis.

The accused was acquitted.

The court sentenced Brenda Dufort, convicted of importing approximately two kilograms of cocaine into Canada, to 5.5 years' imprisonment.

The decision reviews the facts of the offence, the offender’s background, and the relevant sentencing principles and case law.

The court found that while the usual range for first-time couriers is 6–8 years, several mitigating factors justified a sentence slightly below that range.

The defendant, Franklin Kusi, brought a pre-trial Charter application seeking to exclude fentanyl evidence obtained from a vehicle search, alleging a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The Crown argued the vehicle was "apparently abandoned" and the search was a lawful inventory search under the Highway Traffic Act.

The court found the vehicle was "apparently abandoned" and the inventory search was authorized by law and conducted reasonably, thus no s. 8 Charter breach occurred.

Alternatively, if a breach did occur, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, as the Grant factors favoured admission.

The defendant's Charter application was dismissed.

The accused, Brenda Catherine Dufort, was charged with importing approximately two kilograms of cocaine from Trinidad into Canada.

The central issue at trial was whether the Crown could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she had the requisite knowledge or was wilfully blind to the presence of the narcotics.

The defence argued she believed she was transporting currency.

The court examined text messages between the accused and a friend, which revealed discussions about drug exportation and the accused's direct involvement in such activities.

The court found the accused's explanations for these messages to be incredible and her credibility significantly undermined.

Based on the evidence, including the high value of the substance and the accused's deliberate failure to inquire despite suspicious circumstances, the court concluded that the accused either had actual knowledge or was wilfully blind.

Consequently, the accused was found guilty of the offence charged.

The accused, Fitzroy Allen, applied to exclude evidence in his criminal trial (possession for trafficking, flight from police, dangerous driving, and failing to comply with a release order).

He argued that the police violated his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights by conducting an unlawful traffic stop and subsequent search.

The Crown conceded a s. 9 breach but argued the evidence was lawfully seized due to an intervening act (flight from police) and that s. 8 was not breached.

The court found that the initial traffic stop was unlawful, not based on HTA violations but on a desire to conduct a criminal investigation due to the applicant's outstanding charges.

The court rejected the racial profiling allegation.

It further found that the applicant's flight from an unlawful stop did not constitute an intervening event that legitimizes subsequent police actions, thus the subsequent pursuit, arrest, and search also violated ss. 8 and 9.

Applying the Grant inquiry, the court found the breaches serious and the impact on the applicant's Charter interests significant, outweighing the public interest in admitting the reliable evidence.

The application to exclude the physical evidence and post-breach police observations was granted.

The applicants, charged with firearms and drug offences, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

The trial was scheduled to conclude 41 months after charges were laid.

The court deducted 280 days as an exceptional circumstance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and 470 days as defence delay due to counsel unavailability when the Crown and court were ready.

The net delay was calculated at 17 months, well below the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court matters.

The court found the delay was not markedly longer than it reasonably should have been and dismissed the application.

The accused, Jason Ronald Martin, faced multiple charges including impaired driving, drug possession, and probation breaches.

The defence brought Charter applications alleging breaches of ss. 8 (unreasonable search due to a routine strip search and inadequate record-keeping), 9 (arbitrary detention due to delay in bail hearing), and 10(a) and (b) (right to be informed of reasons for arrest and right to counsel).

The court found breaches of s. 8 and ss. 10(a) and (b), noting the police's routine strip search policy and their failure to promptly and clearly inform the accused of all charges.

The s. 9 application was dismissed as the delay in bringing the accused before a justice was deemed reasonable given the circumstances.

Applying the Grant test under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court determined that the serious nature of the breaches and their significant impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests warranted the exclusion of all evidence.

Consequently, all charges against the accused were dismissed.