Brigid Luke

The accused was charged with possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking and multiple firearms offences following a police investigation into her boyfriend's drug dealing.

Police observed the boyfriend conducting drug transactions from the accused's car and later executed search warrants, finding drugs at an apartment and a firearm in the accused's bedroom.

The court found the accused not guilty on all charges, concluding the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she had knowledge and control of the drugs found at the apartment, or that she knowingly possessed the firearm, particularly given her boyfriend's spontaneous confession that he had hidden the gun in her room without her knowledge.

The applicant brought a Charter motion to exclude a handgun and ammunition seized during a police search of her residence.

The police executed the search warrant using a dynamic entry, breaking down the door and using a distraction device without knocking or announcing their presence.

The court found that the systematic use of dynamic entry by the police violated the applicant's s. 8 Charter rights against unreasonable search.

However, applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the evidence should not be excluded, as the breach did not seriously undermine the applicant's interests and society has a strong interest in adjudicating the charges on their merits.

The accused was charged with possession of cannabis for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime exceeding $5,000.

The defence sought exclusion of evidence seized from a vehicle, alleging a breach of s. 8 of the Charter due to an unlawful traffic stop and search.

The court found significant credibility concerns with the arresting officer, including prior professional misconduct involving dishonesty and evasive testimony.

However, corroborating evidence from a second officer supported the account that the accused ran a red light, providing reasonable and probable grounds for the stop and subsequent arrest.

The search of the vehicle incident to arrest was therefore lawful and the seized drugs and cash were admissible.