Brian G. Puddington

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The court also addressed a procedural issue regarding a conspiracy charge that had been withdrawn but upon which the trial judge had rendered findings of guilt and imposed a concurrent sentence.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 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 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 Crown sought detention of the accused on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds following charges of 35 offences related to firearms and controlled substances.

The accused was found in possession of loaded firearms, significant quantities of cocaine, marijuana, and ecstasy, along with 34 cell phones.

The court found no significant risk of absconding on the primary ground but determined the accused posed a substantial likelihood of committing further offences on the secondary ground and that detention was necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice on the tertiary ground.

The accused was ordered detained.