Ashli Pinnock

The accused challenged the validity of a search warrant executed at his apartment, alleging it violated section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused argued there were no reasonable grounds to believe he was the individual referred to by a confidential informant, that he resided at the searched location, or that evidence would be found there.

The court upheld the search warrant, finding that the police had established reasonable grounds based on the informant's credible and corroborated information, vehicle registration records, driver's licence information, and CCTV footage showing the accused's presence at the apartment.

The court rejected the accused's arguments and dismissed the Charter application.

The court sentenced Sukhraj Singh, who pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, to two years less a day to be served as a conditional sentence in the community, followed by two years of probation.

The decision reviews the relevant sentencing principles, the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the applicable case law, ultimately finding that a conditional sentence is appropriate given the offender’s background, addiction, and compliance with strict bail conditions for four years.

The applicant, Sayzer Sherif, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence (cocaine and currency) seized during a traffic stop and subsequent arrest.

The applicant alleged breaches of sections 7, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter, including failure to promptly inform of reasons for detention/arrest, delayed access to counsel, questioning after invoking right to counsel, dissuading from counsel before a strip search, and muting of body-worn cameras.

The court found breaches of sections 10(a) and 10(b) regarding delayed information, delayed access to counsel, improper questioning, and dissuasion from counsel before a strip search.

However, the court found no breach of section 7 regarding the muted body-worn cameras.

Applying the Grant factors, the court determined that the breaches were not serious enough, and their impact on the applicant's Charter interests was limited, thus the admission of the reliable evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of fentanyl trafficking and one count of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence, while the defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court considered the aggravating factors, including the dangerous nature of fentanyl and the quantity involved, alongside significant mitigating factors such as the defendant's guilty plea, youth, and the impact of systemic anti-Black racism (Morris factors).

The lengthy period under restrictive bail conditions was also a substantial mitigating factor.

Despite the strong mitigating circumstances, the court determined that the severity of the offences, particularly fentanyl trafficking, necessitated a penitentiary sentence to uphold principles of general deterrence and denunciation.

A conditional sentence was deemed inappropriate.

The court imposed a sentence of 29 months, reduced to 28 months and 19 days after credit for pre-trial custody, with concurrent sentences for the trafficking counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of 214 grams of opium for the purpose of trafficking.

He was a first-time offender who had been addicted to opium and possessed it for personal use rather than commercial gain.

The Crown sought a 24-month conditional sentence, while the defence sought a discharge to prevent a criminal record that would bar the accused from working in the trucking industry.

The court granted a conditional discharge with 18 months of probation, finding it was in the accused's best interests and not contrary to the public interest, given his lack of criminal record, good prospects for rehabilitation, and the impact a conviction would have on his employment.

The three accused were charged with conspiracy to traffic cocaine, trafficking cocaine, and possession of proceeds of crime following an RCMP undercover operation.

The Crown's case relied heavily on voice identification evidence from intercepted communications to link the accused Shanker to the conspiracy.

The court found the voice identification evidence unreliable due to cross-racial identification issues, expectation bias, and the poor quality of the recordings.

Without reliable voice identification, the circumstantial evidence of the accused's presence at the warehouse was insufficient to prove their involvement in the drug trafficking scheme beyond a reasonable doubt.

All accused were acquitted of the cocaine-related charges.

Pawar conceded guilt to a separate charge of possessing opium for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused applied to exclude evidence of 18 kilograms of cocaine, 7 kilograms of crystal methamphetamine, and over $200,000 in cash seized during a drug trafficking investigation.

They alleged multiple Charter violations, including unreasonable search of a condominium parking garage, arbitrary arrest, warrantless entry into a dwelling, and denial of the right to counsel.

The court found that the police did not violate sections 8 or 9 of the Charter, as the accused had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the garage and the police had reasonable grounds for arrest.

However, the court found breaches of section 10(b) due to a failure to hold off questioning and a delay in facilitating access to counsel.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and dismissed the application.

The accused, charged with drug trafficking and firearms offences, brought a Charter motion under s. 8 and s. 24(2) to exclude evidence obtained from a general warrant and a subsequent search warrant.

The general warrant authorized covert entries into a condominium unit suspected to be a fentanyl stash house.

The court found that the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained unconstitutionally obtained video surveillance evidence and misleading exaggerations about the accused's pattern of behaviour.

After excising the problematic portions, the court concluded there were insufficient grounds to issue the general warrant.

Applying the Grant framework, the court found the police conduct was serious and the impact on the accused's privacy was high, warranting the exclusion of the seized evidence under s. 24(2).

The offender, a police officer, was sentenced for multiple offences including breach of trust, unauthorized use of a computer, possession of a firearm obtained by crime, and trafficking by offer.

The offences involved accessing confidential police databases for unauthorized purposes, planning to rob a fictional drug warehouse, stealing a police shotgun, and offering to traffic cocaine.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the severe breach of public trust.

The offender was sentenced to a global term of 7.5 years imprisonment.

The accused, a police officer, was found guilty of multiple offences including unauthorized use of a computer, breach of trust, possessing a stolen firearm, and drug trafficking following an undercover police corruption investigation.

The accused brought an application seeking a stay of proceedings, arguing he was entrapped by undercover officers and that the investigation amounted to an abuse of process.

The court found that the accused was entrapped into committing theft and uttering forged documents relating to a fabricated confidential informant report, as the police induced the offences without reasonable suspicion, and stayed those counts.

However, the court dismissed the entrapment application for the remaining offences, finding that reasonable suspicion existed and the accused was not induced, but rather created his own opportunities to commit the crimes.

The court also declined to grant a general stay for abuse of process.

The accused, a police officer, was targeted in an undercover corruption investigation.

He was charged with 14 offences arising from his interactions with an undercover officer posing as his partner and another undercover officer posing as a mid-level organized crime figure.

The court found the accused guilty of theft and uttering forged documents for keeping money intended for a fictitious confidential informant and forging the receipt.

He was also found guilty of unauthorized use of a computer and breach of trust for running licence plates for personal reasons and to assist the undercover drug dealer.

The accused was found guilty of possessing a firearm obtained by crime and possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose after he stole a police shotgun in preparation for robbing a drug warehouse.

However, he was acquitted of attempted robbery because his extensive planning had not progressed beyond mere preparation.

He was also convicted of trafficking cocaine by offer and trafficking steroids to the undercover officer.

During a trial for first-degree murder, the Crown brought an application to admit expert evidence regarding street gangs, specifically the rivalry between 'C3' and the 'Scarlettwood Crips'.

The Crown sought to qualify a police detective as an expert to provide context and establish motive for the seemingly random shooting of an unarmed man.

The defence opposed the application, arguing the evidence was highly prejudicial and the officer was not properly qualified.

The court allowed the application, finding the evidence was logically relevant to motive, necessary to assist the jury in understanding the context of the shooting, and that the officer was qualified.

The court ruled that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect, subject to specific exclusions of certain highly prejudicial videos and appropriate jury instructions.

The accused, Evans Okwara, was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and unlawfully importing heroin into Canada.

The Crown presented evidence including cell phone records showing knowledge of the shipment details and searches related to the delivery address, as well as a storage locker access card found in the accused's wallet, which contained additional heroin.

The accused's testimony denying knowledge and involvement was found to be inconsistent with the evidence.

The court applied the R. v. W.(D.) framework and found the accused guilty on both counts, concluding that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly possessed and imported heroin for trafficking.

The defendant, Kevin Deonath, was charged with second-degree murder following the shooting death of Roy Khan.

The court examined whether the Crown proved the requisite intent for murder and disproved self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The evidence indicated a struggle ensued after Khan pointed a loaded handgun at Deonath.

The court found that while an inference of intentional firing was available, another reasonable inference was that the gun discharged unintentionally during the struggle as Deonath defended himself.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove intent for murder and failed to disprove lawful self-defence.

Deonath was acquitted.

The defendant was arrested based on the odour of burnt marijuana detected by police during a traffic stop.

Following the arrest, police conducted a strip search at the roadside without proper grounds or informational requirements, and delayed informing the defendant of his right to counsel for approximately 50 minutes.

The defendant was charged with possession of controlled drugs for trafficking, assault with intent to resist arrest, administering a noxious substance, and failing to comply with probation.

The court found multiple Charter violations including an unlawful arrest, unreasonable delay in providing s. 10(b) rights, and an improperly conducted strip search.

All evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in acquittals on all charges.

Following a five-day trial, the court found both defendants guilty of breaking and entering into a dwelling to commit an indictable offence (home invasion).

The defendants and a third party, armed with firearms and other weapons, broke into an occupied residential home at night.

During the struggle with the homeowner, one of the intruders was killed.

The court imposed penitentiary sentences of 9 years for each defendant, less pre-trial custody credits, resulting in sentences of 8 years 9 months for one defendant and 8 years 5 months for the other.

The court also imposed ancillary orders including weapons prohibitions and DNA sampling orders.

The respondent was convicted of importing approximately 1,976 grams of cocaine into Canada on December 1, 2015, concealed in four containers (Metamucil, curry spice, and psyllium fibre powder) in her personal belongings upon return from Jamaica.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of six to eight years, while the defence sought three to five years.

The court imposed a sentence of six years' incarceration at the low end of the established range for multi-kilogram cocaine importation, along with a mandatory lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The court considered the respondent's personal circumstances, community support, and pro-social conduct since arrest as mitigating factors, but found these did not warrant a departure below the applicable sentencing range given the serious nature of multi-kilogram drug importation.

The Crown charged two defendants with breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence.

The case involved circumstantial evidence of identity, including BlackBerry Messenger communications recovered from the deceased intruder's phone.

The court admitted hearsay evidence under the present intentions exception and the co-conspirator's exception to the hearsay rule.

The Crown established that the defendants were members of a conspiracy to commit the break-in through analysis of cryptic text messages, DNA evidence, and circumstantial connections.

Both defendants were convicted.

The accused was charged with importing cocaine into Canada contrary to section 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown's case was based on circumstantial evidence that the accused knowingly or was wilfully blind to the fact that four jars in her suitcase contained approximately 1,976 grams of cocaine.

The trial focused on whether the Crown proved the requisite mental state beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the accused's testimony lacked credibility due to multiple inconsistencies with her police statements and with her niece's testimony.

The court concluded that the accused either had actual knowledge or was wilfully blind to the contents of the jars, and convicted her as charged.