Andrew James Nisker

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.

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 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 applicant brought a Charter application seeking to exclude evidence obtained as a result of alleged violations of his rights under sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

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

The Crown conceded that the applicant's section 9 Charter rights were violated when he was arrested and detained while driving a vehicle.

The applicant challenged the validity of the search warrant on the basis that the Information to Obtain was misleading and insufficiently corroborated the confidential informant's information.

The court found that while the police acted in good faith, the ITO contained insufficient detail regarding surveillance and failed to establish reasonable and probable grounds.

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

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.