B. Clendenning

Following a judge‑alone criminal trial involving extensive wiretap and surveillance evidence, the accused faced multiple charges relating to firearm trafficking, drug trafficking conspiracy, possession of firearms, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The central issue was whether the accused was the individual known as “Kia” in intercepted communications coordinating cocaine trafficking and the transfer of a handgun.

The court excluded voice‑identification evidence derived from statements obtained in breach of the accused’s Charter s.10(b) right to counsel, but held that overwhelming circumstantial evidence independently established identity.

The court found that the accused participated in conspiracies to traffic cocaine and a firearm and constructively possessed the firearm for the purpose of transfer.

However, the Crown failed to prove possession of a separate Ruger handgun or related proceeds of crime found in the residence.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence obtained during execution of a search warrant at a residence, arguing that police conducted an unlawful “no‑knock” dynamic entry contrary to common law principles and s. 8 of the Charter.

The issuing justice of the peace had declined to authorize a no‑knock entry, leaving the issue to be justified by exigent circumstances at common law.

The court found that police had reasonable grounds to believe a firearm was present, that the occupants had violent histories, and that safety risks and escape concerns justified a surprise entry.

The court held that the dynamic entry was reasonable and did not violate s. 8.

In the alternative, the evidence would have been admitted under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

During a criminal trial involving allegations of conspiracy to traffic cocaine and firearms, the Crown sought to introduce evidence of other discreditable conduct.

The court considered whether count‑to‑count reasoning and comparator wiretap intercepts relating to unrelated drug transactions were admissible.

Applying the principles governing propensity and bad character evidence, the court held that certain evidence relating to drug trafficking could be used as contextual circumstantial evidence for possession of proceeds of crime and firearms, but not to infer guilt on unrelated firearm trafficking counts.

The court further ruled that comparator wiretap intercepts involving alleged drug dealings with third parties were inadmissible because their probative value was low and their prejudicial effect extremely high.

In a criminal trial involving charges of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and firearms and related firearm and proceeds offences, the accused brought a motion seeking to excise portions of intercepted wiretap communications before they were presented to the jury.

The court assessed the admissibility of various excerpts under the common law balancing of probative value against prejudicial effect.

While many portions were found highly probative of the alleged conspiracies—particularly discussions identifying a firearm, the motive for acquiring it, and relationships between alleged co‑conspirators—other segments containing inflammatory threats, gang‑related references, reckless conduct, or irrelevant personal remarks were ordered removed.

The court emphasized the importance of limiting prejudice while preserving context necessary for the Crown’s theory of conspiracy and firearms trafficking.

Numerous specified line ranges across several intercepts were ordered excised, while the remainder of the recordings were admitted.

On a severance motion in a multi-accused criminal prosecution involving conspiracy to traffic cocaine and firearms and possession offences, one accused sought to introduce a co‑accused’s police statement admitting ownership of seized cash or alternatively sought severance to compel the co‑accused’s testimony.

The statement had previously been excluded under s. 24(2) following a breach of the co‑accused’s s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel.

The court held the statement was hearsay and its prejudicial effect—particularly the risk that a jury would improperly use it against the co‑accused—outweighed its probative value.

Applying the principles governing severance under s. 591(3) of the Criminal Code and the framework in R. v. Savoury and R. v. Last, the court found there was a reasonable possibility the co‑accused would testify if trials were separated and that her evidence could materially assist the moving accused’s defence.

Balancing prejudice to the accused with efficiency concerns, the court ordered separate trials.