Bradley Reitz

The appellant appealed his convictions for drug and firearms offences, which were based on constructive possession of items found in a locked closet at a stash house.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial.

The trial judge convicted the appellant, rejecting the defence argument that it was reasonable to infer the appellant lacked knowledge or control of the closet's contents.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and directed an acquittal.

The Court found, with the Crown's concession, that it was reasonably inferable the appellant went to the house to clear it after his associates' arrests but left the closet because he lacked access or knowledge of its contents, meaning constructive possession was not the only reasonable inference.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for possession of 26 pounds of raw marijuana found in the trunk of his car.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and search based on an officer smelling raw marijuana, and that the trial judge failed to reconcile conflicting officer testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in relying on the smell evidence to establish grounds for arrest.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge did not err in rejecting a conditional sentence given the appellant's antecedents and the quantity of marijuana.

The appellant was acquitted at trial of diamond smuggling charges after the trial judge found that a 'hard entry' by an Emergency Response Team violated his s. 8 Charter rights and excluded the evidence.

The summary conviction appeal court allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial, relying on the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Cornell.

The Court of Appeal granted the appellant leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, holding that the police must be allowed latitude in tactical entry decisions and that the hard entry was reasonable given the unknown risks, including the potential presence of weapons.

The appellant appealed a conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking arising from a street-level police encounter initiated on mere suspicion.

The court held that the police unlawfully detained the appellant, used immigration questioning as a pretext to create grounds for arrest, and then conducted an illegal search incident to that arrest.

The court found breaches of ss. 8, 9 and 10(b) of the Charter and concluded that the seized crack cocaine would not have been obtained absent those violations.

The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2), the conviction was quashed, and an acquittal was entered.