Andrew James Nisker

The accused was charged with possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking after police found 9 ounces of the drug in the bed of his pickup truck during a search incident to a warrantless arrest.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his s. 8 and s. 9 rights, arguing police lacked reasonable grounds for the arrest.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the police had both subjective and objective reasonable grounds based on surveillance of the accused meeting with a known drug supplier.

At trial, the court rejected the accused's testimony as a complete fabrication and found that the circumstantial evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he had knowledge and control of the drugs.

The accused was found guilty.

The applicant sought exclusion of drugs seized during a traffic stop involving an unplated vehicle driven while under suspension.

The court held the applicant failed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle itself, given the absence of plates, lack of proof of ownership or consent, and suspended licence status, but did retain a privacy interest in a box and camera bag found inside the vehicle.

Applying the s. 8 standing analysis, search reasonableness principles, and the law of search incident to arrest, the court found the glovebox search was lawful for ownership documentation, the container search was reasonable in the circumstances, and the later camera bag search was lawful incident to arrest.

In the alternative, any hypothetical Charter breaches would not justify exclusion under s. 24(2).

The application was dismissed and the evidence ruled admissible at trial.

The applicant pled guilty to drug trafficking offences but sought a stay of two counts of cocaine trafficking, alleging entrapment.

He argued police lacked reasonable suspicion that he was trafficking cocaine before providing him the opportunity to sell it to an undercover officer.

The court dismissed the application, finding that police had formed the requisite reasonable suspicion based on reliable confidential informant tips, extensive surveillance, and the applicant's own statements to the undercover officer prior to the drug transaction.

The offender, a 33-year-old first offender, was found guilty of possession of cocaine and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The police seized over 400 grams of cocaine, over 700 grams of marijuana, and $7,225 in cash from his home.

The Crown sought a sentence of 5 to 5.5 years, while the defence sought 2 to 3 years.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of the large quantity of drugs and profit motive against the mitigating factors of the offender's lack of a criminal record, employment, and family support.

The court imposed a global sentence of 45 months, reduced to 35 months after crediting 10 months for pre-sentence detention and restrictive bail conditions.

The accused, Kamil Filli and Liban Douale, faced charges of drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

Both brought applications to exclude evidence under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Filli argued his warrantless arrest and subsequent search were unlawful.

The court dismissed Filli's application, finding his arrest and search lawful, or at worst a low-level Charter breach that would not warrant exclusion of evidence under the R. v. Grant test.

Douale argued the search warrant for his residence was based on information obtained through an unlawful warrantless search by police in the common hallway of his multi-unit residential building.

The court granted Douale's application, finding that the police conducted an unlawful warrantless search by entering the building and overhearing a conversation, which was the sole basis for subsequent incriminating observations.

This serious breach of privacy, coupled with the affiant's omission of these facts from the Information to Obtain, led to the exclusion of evidence against Douale under section 24(2) of the Charter, effectively ending the prosecution's case against him.

The accused was charged with possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking after police found 31.58 grams of crystal meth in his possession.

He pleaded guilty to simple possession but contested the trafficking charge.

The Crown relied heavily on expert evidence from a police detective regarding typical consumption and trafficking patterns to argue the quantity was too large for personal use.

The court excluded portions of the expert's evidence that touched on the ultimate issue or lacked a reliable foundation.

Ultimately, the court found that while the quantity was large, it was not impossible for it to be for personal use, and the absence of other trafficking indicia left a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted of trafficking but convicted of simple possession.

The appellant appealed his global sentence of 7 years' imprisonment for drug and property-related offences, including possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine.

He argued the sentencing judge erred in finding he was at a high level of the drug business.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the agreed facts amply supported the inference that he was a high-level trafficker and not merely a non-professional courier.

The sentence fell within the appropriate range.

A 29-year-old first-time offender pleaded guilty to possession of 190 grams of ketamine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of $470.00 in proceeds of crime.

The offences occurred in December 2013 when police executed a search warrant.

The court balanced aggravating factors (the dangerous nature of ketamine and trafficking for commercial gain) against significant mitigating factors (youthful offender with rehabilitation prospects, single father caring for a 10-year-old daughter, hard-working, guilty plea, clean bail record, and no criminal history).

The court imposed a 6-month jail sentence for the trafficking charge and an 18-month conditional sentence followed by 2 years probation for the proceeds charge, with strict conditions including house confinement for the first 6 months and a curfew thereafter.

The appellant appealed his conviction and argued that the trial judge erred in concluding there was no breach of the right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The court agreed that the full period from charge to completion of trial must be considered in assessing inferred prejudice, including neutral time periods, and noted the trial judge's reasons were open to error on that point.

However, taking both inferred and actual prejudice into account, the court held that no s. 11(b) violation was made out.

The conviction appeal was dismissed and the appellant was directed to begin serving the intermittent sentence imposed at trial.

The defendant was convicted of production of cannabis, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm with ammunition, and related drug and weapons offences following a search warrant execution at a residential property where a sophisticated hydroponic marijuana grow operation was discovered.

The sentencing judgment addresses three key legal issues: whether the mandatory minimum sentence for possession of a loaded firearm remains in effect following the Smickle decision declaring it unconstitutional; whether the combination of drug production and firearms constitutes an aggravating factor; and whether sentences should be imposed concurrently or consecutively.

The court imposed a global sentence of 43 months imprisonment, treating the offences as concurrent given their interconnected nature within a single criminal enterprise.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The police arrested the accused and searched his vehicle without a warrant, finding keys that opened an apartment where drugs and money were located.

The Crown conceded a s. 9 Charter breach for the arrest and a defective search warrant for the apartment.

The court conducted a Grant analysis and found that the police conduct in drafting the Information to Obtain (ITO) was significantly careless and misleading.

The court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

He was stopped by police for a by-law infraction at a transit station, which escalated into an arrest and search incident to arrest after an officer observed him moving a bag of drugs.

The accused brought a Charter motion alleging violations of his ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) rights, arguing the police fabricated the grounds for arrest.

The court dismissed the Charter motion, finding the officer's account credible and that reasonable grounds existed for the arrest.

The accused was found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking and not guilty of possession of proceeds of crime.

The applicant was charged with five drug-related offences, six firearm-related offences, one charge of proceeds obtained by crime, and four charges of possession of stolen property arising from a marijuana production operation.

The applicant brought a Charter section 8 application challenging the search warrant executed at his residence on September 19, 2011.

The applicant sought to exclude all evidence seized during the search.

The court conducted a voir dire to examine the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant.

After careful review and redaction of irrelevant, misleading, and prejudicial information from the ITO, the court found that sufficient reasonable and probable grounds existed to justify the issuance of the warrant based on the totality of circumstances, including distinctive electricity consumption patterns and police observations.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with possession of marijuana, crack cocaine, and MDMA for the purpose of trafficking after police discovered the drugs in a locked briefcase during a vehicle search following arrest for possession of a marijuana cigarette.

The accused sought exclusion of the drugs under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter, arguing the police unlawfully searched a locked briefcase without a warrant.

The court found the officers credible and accepted their evidence that a strong odour of fresh marijuana emanated from the vehicle and the briefcase, giving them a reasonable basis to search it as an incident to arrest.

Relying on authorities such as Cloutier v. Langlois, R. v. Caslake, and R. v. Zucatti, the court held that common law powers of search incident to arrest extend to forcibly opening a locked briefcase where the search is reasonably connected to the arrest.

No Charter breach occurred and the drug evidence was admitted.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime after police observed him discard a package containing crack cocaine while fleeing.

The central issue was whether the accused possessed the drugs and whether cash found on him was proceeds of crime.

The court accepted the police officer’s evidence that he saw the accused drop the package and later recovered it from a garden below the porch.

The accused’s explanation regarding the origin of the cash and his possession of two cellphones was rejected as not credible.

The court concluded that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possessed cash obtained through trafficking.