Brian G. Puddington

The appellants were convicted of possession of cocaine and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking following a jury trial.

They appealed on four grounds: (1) breach of s. 11(b) Charter rights to trial within a reasonable time; (2) erroneous admission of expert opinion evidence from a police officer involved in the investigation; (3) an unreasonable Corbett ruling excluding certain prior convictions; and (4) unfairness in the trial judge's charge to the jury regarding the defence witness.

The Court of Appeal rejected the s. 11(b) argument but found merit in the other three grounds, concluding that the cumulative effect of these errors denied the appellants a fair trial.

The appellant was convicted of multiple drug trafficking and possession offences arising from events in spring 2011.

He appealed his convictions on the grounds that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the prohibition against applying evidence across counts in a multi-count case, failed to correct improper cross-examination and closing arguments by the Crown, and failed to properly instruct on propensity reasoning.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by providing ambiguous instructions on cross-count reasoning, failing to correct the Crown's improper invitations to the jury to use evidence from one count to determine guilt on other counts, and providing contradictory responses to jury questions.

The court concluded that the jury's verdicts were tainted by legally impermissible reasoning and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of cocaine and crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, challenging the lawfulness of his warrantless arrest and subsequent search.

The appellant argued that police lacked sufficient grounds for arrest based on information from a confidential informant, contending there was insufficient information regarding the informant's source of knowledge and that inadequate corroboration was provided.

The appellant also alleged the trial judge improperly shifted the burden of proof on the Charter s. 8 voir dire.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the trial judge properly applied the test from R. v. Debot and that the totality of circumstances supported reasonable and probable grounds for arrest.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The trial judge had found that police surveillance officers observed a co-accused placing a bag in the appellant's vehicle trunk, which the trial judge relied upon to conclude the appellant was acting in a joint venture to traffic cocaine.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had misapprehended the evidence regarding this key fact.

This misapprehension was material to the conviction and, standing alone, required a new trial.

The court rejected the appellant's alternative submission that the verdict was unreasonable.

The court also addressed a procedural issue regarding a conspiracy charge that had been withdrawn but upon which the trial judge had rendered findings of guilt and imposed a concurrent sentence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, arguing that his arrest lacked reasonable and probable grounds once evidence obtained from an illegal police entry into a condominium was excluded.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the totality of the remaining circumstances provided sufficient grounds for the arrest.

However, the court granted leave to appeal the sentence and quashed the two-year probation order, as the Crown conceded it was illegal under s. 731(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to stay proceedings against the respondent on charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of stolen property.

The trial judge entered the stay on his own initiative when the trial Crown was 22 minutes late due to a conflicting sentencing matter in Superior Court.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge was right to be displeased, a stay of proceedings was not warranted as there was no prejudice to the respondent's right to a fair trial and the integrity of the justice system was not diminished.

The applicant was arrested at gunpoint by plainclothes police officers who suspected him of trafficking heroin from his vehicle.

A warrantless search of the vehicle incident to arrest yielded a large quantity of heroin hidden in false-bottomed aerosol cans and cash.

The applicant brought a Charter application under ss. 8, 9, and 24(2) to exclude the evidence, arguing the police lacked objective reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest.

The court found the arrest was lawful based on the totality of the circumstances observed by the surveillance team.

Alternatively, applying the Grant framework, the court held that even if a Charter breach occurred, the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2) given the reliability of the evidence and society's interest in adjudicating the serious charges on their merits.

The appellant appealed his drug convictions, arguing they were unreasonable because there was no evidence of where in his residence the drugs were found.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and proceeds of crime, finding sufficient evidence to support the inference of possession.

However, the court quashed the convictions relating to various pills, holding that without evidence of where the pills were discovered in the house, it was unreasonable to infer possession based solely on the appellant's residency.

The appellants were convicted of trafficking and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

They appealed their convictions, arguing that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest one of the appellants, and therefore the evidence obtained during the search incident to arrest should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the arresting officer had the requisite reasonable and probable grounds based on confidential information and police surveillance of a suspected drug transaction.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery and trafficking in cocaine pursuant to a proposed resolution of all charges.

The court accepted a joint submission on sentence and noted significant rehabilitative efforts while in custody, including multiple institutional programs and a planned admission to a Salvation Army residential treatment centre.

The endorsement was issued primarily to support the accused's request for direct release to that treatment facility on completion of the custodial portion of sentence.

The court emphasized rehabilitation and encouraged institutional coordination to facilitate treatment.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction acquittal on charges of possession of marijuana, assaulting a police officer, and failing to comply with bail.

The trial judge had concluded that the accused’s Charter rights were violated, apparently based on racial profiling, unlawful arrest, and excessive force, and excluded the marijuana evidence.

The appeal judge held that the trial reasons were inadequate and failed to explain the path to the conclusions, preventing meaningful appellate review.

The decision also contained legal errors, including conflation of Charter concepts relating to detention, arrest, and search, and failure to resolve critical credibility issues regarding the police officer’s evidence.

The acquittals were set aside and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for importing 1.18 kilograms of cocaine concealed in frozen fish in suitcases brought from Jamaica.

The sole issue at trial was whether the accused knew about the cocaine, as he claimed he had been duped into transporting the fish.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge improperly relied on his false customs declaration and misapprehended evidence concerning surrounding circumstances.

The Court of Appeal held that the false declaration was conduct occurring during the commission of the offence and could properly be considered as circumstantial evidence and in assessing credibility.

The court further found no misapprehension of evidence in the trial judge’s findings and upheld the inference that the appellant knew about the cocaine.

The accused was charged with possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking after police executing a search warrant observed her at a window and later located a pink pencil case outside containing approximately 135 grams of methamphetamine packaged in multiple baggies.

The court accepted the evidence of a police officer who observed a flash of pink leaving the accused’s hand and later recovered the case below the apartment window.

Defence evidence asserting that a window screen made it impossible to throw the case outside was rejected as inconsistent and unreliable.

While the court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed and knowingly discarded the drugs, the Crown failed to prove that the possession was for the purpose of trafficking, as there was no additional indicia of trafficking discovered during the search.

The accused was therefore convicted of simple possession but acquitted of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The appellant appealed his convictions for trafficking in cocaine, possession of proceeds of crime, and offering to transfer a firearm, which arose from an undercover police operation.

He argued that the trial judge erred in refusing to stay the charges for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter, failing to exclude evidence due to s. 8 and s. 10(b) Charter breaches, misapprehending identification evidence, and rejecting his entrapment application.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the periods of delay and found that while the delay was significant, it did not violate s. 11(b) when balanced against societal interests and the lack of actual prejudice.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's findings that the search was consensual or minimally intrusive, the identification evidence was reliable, and the undercover officer's actions constituted legitimate investigation rather than entrapment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence arising from his arrest for cocaine trafficking and the subsequent search of a condominium unit where police seized nine kilograms of cocaine.

He alleged breaches of ss. 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms relating to unlawful arrest, seizure of keys and a key fob, warrantless retrieval of fob access information, warrantless entry into a condominium unit, and alleged deficiencies in the Information to Obtain a search warrant.

The court held that police had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest based on surveillance of a suspected drug transaction and subsequent flight.

While the warrantless entry into the condominium unit violated s. 8 because exigent circumstances were not established, the subsequent search warrant remained valid after excision of impugned material.

Applying the s. 24(2) analysis, the court admitted the seized cocaine, finding the Charter breach modest and the evidence highly reliable and essential to the Crown’s case.

The accused was charged with possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and assaulting a police officer.

Police approached the accused in a hotel lobby after receiving a tip that he possessed a large quantity of drugs.

The accused dropped a shopping bag containing approximately one pound of methamphetamine, pushed an officer, and attempted to flee before being subdued with a taser.

At trial the accused denied knowledge of the drugs and denied pushing the officer, claiming he was unknowingly carrying the bag for acquaintances.

The court rejected the accused’s evidence as inherently improbable and inconsistent, accepted the police officers’ testimony, and inferred knowledge of the drugs from the circumstances and the accused’s conduct.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which set aside the respondent's conviction for possessing marijuana and cocaine for the purposes of trafficking and ordered a new trial.

The central issue was whether a drug purchase call intercepted by police on the accused's cell phone constituted admissible evidence or inadmissible hearsay.

The Court held that implied assertions tendered for the truth of their contents are subject to the hearsay rule, just as express assertions are.

On a principled analysis, the single drug purchase call failed to meet the requirements of necessity and reliability, as no effort was made to locate the caller despite having his address, and the call lacked sufficient indicia of reliability.

The appeal was dismissed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant was convicted by a jury of trafficking in cocaine and possession of property obtained by crime.

He appealed his conviction, alleging five errors in the trial judge's charge to the jury, including a slip of the tongue where the judge referred to him as 'Mr. Guilty', the absence of a limiting instruction on bad character evidence, and errors in the W.D. instruction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit to the alleged errors and concluding that the jury was properly instructed and no miscarriage of justice occurred.

The accused applied for production of investigative records from the Special Investigations Unit arising from his arrest during the execution of a search warrant, during which he sustained serious injuries.

The application was brought to support a potential Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings under ss. 7, 12, and 24(1).

Applying the framework from R. v. O’Connor, the court balanced the accused’s right to make full answer and defence against the confidentiality interests asserted by the SIU.

The court found the SIU witness interviews and follow-up reports highly probative of the circumstances of the arrest and necessary for the accused’s Charter claims.

The privacy interests asserted by the SIU were limited because the statements related to officers performing public duties and confidentiality promises were not absolute.

Production of the reports and interviews to the defence was ordered subject to standard disclosure conditions.

The appellant was convicted of drug offences after being found with cocaine and cash.

During deliberations, the jury asked a question about whether they could draw an adverse inference from the absence of witnesses to corroborate the appellant's explanation for the cash.

Before the trial judge answered the question, the jury indicated they had reached a verdict, which the judge accepted without answering the question.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury that they should attach no evidentiary significance to the appellant's failure to call witnesses, as the question reflected a potential misapprehension of the burden of proof.