Antoinette Issa

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittals on charges of production of marijuana and bribery.

The trial judge had excluded the respondent's statements to police under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding breaches of ss. 9, 10(a), and 10(b) due to the respondent's language difficulties.

The Court of Appeal upheld the exclusion of evidence for the marijuana charge.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the bribery charge, holding that the statements offering money to police constituted the actus reus of a new offence and did not flow causally from the Charter breaches.

A new trial was ordered for the bribery charge.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, arguing the jury verdict was unreasonable due to insufficient evidence of his knowledge or control of the drugs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that circumstantial evidence—including the drugs' plain view on the vehicle's centre console, their proximity to the appellant, and the presence of cash and cell phones—provided a sufficient basis for a properly instructed jury to infer knowledge and control.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences for trafficking marijuana.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, rejecting arguments regarding hearing impairment, freedom of religion, lack of a search warrant, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeals, finding the original sentences of two years and one year imprisonment manifestly excessive for the small amounts of marijuana involved.

The sentences were reduced to five months and three months.

The court also varied the full forfeiture order of the appellants' property to a partial forfeiture of half the equity, as the second floor was used solely as a personal residence.

The applicants, who were convicted of trafficking in marijuana, brought a motion for a writ of habeas corpus challenging their bail conditions pending appeal.

They argued the conditions infringed their freedom of religion by preventing them from using marijuana and attending their church/home.

They also sought an order requiring the Crown to pay a mortgage demand on their house.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding it had no jurisdiction to grant habeas corpus in relation to bail conditions, and no basis to grant relief concerning the notice of sale.