A. Schreck

Four accused were charged with possession of cannabis resin for the purpose of trafficking after police intercepted shipping containers from Pakistan containing chromium ore concealing approximately 4.6 metric tons of cannabis resin.

Police removed the drugs and conducted a controlled delivery of a sample to a Toronto warehouse, where the accused were arrested after entering the premises.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including surveillance, fingerprint evidence, and the accused’s association with the shipment and each other.

The court held that the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that any accused had knowledge or control of the hidden drugs.

Alternative inferences consistent with innocence remained available, including the possibility that the accused were unwitting participants in the shipment’s handling.

The accused applied for certiorari to quash their committal for trial on a charge of first degree murder following a preliminary inquiry.

They conceded that evidence supported committal for second degree murder but argued the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded jurisdiction by finding evidence capable of supporting planning and deliberation.

The Superior Court held that certiorari is only available where a preliminary inquiry judge commits an accused without any evidence of an essential element or relies on irrational inferences.

The court concluded the hearing judge properly distinguished between speculation and rational inference and applied the correct circumstantial evidence test.

Viewing the evidence as a whole, a properly instructed jury could reasonably infer planning and deliberation.

The applications were dismissed.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm and drug offences following his arrest while driving with a loaded prohibited firearm and marijuana.

At a bail hearing, the justice of the peace endorsed the information under s. 515(9.1) of the Criminal Code based on the accused's prior criminal record, restricting pre-sentence custody credit to 1:1.

Following conviction on all counts, the accused challenged the constitutionality of s. 719(3.1), which removes sentencing discretion regarding enhanced pre-sentence custody credit when a bail justice has made a s. 515(9.1) endorsement.

The court found the impugned provision violated s. 7 of the Charter and declared it of no force and effect.

The court imposed a global sentence of 6 years imprisonment with 1.5:1 credit for pre-sentence custody.