Byron Alvares

Omerjah Burke was charged with firearms offences, possession of oxycodone and cocaine for trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The charges stemmed from a search warrant execution where contraband was found in a locked bedroom of an apartment leased by Burke.

Burke claimed he had sublet the room to a friend named Kevin and had no knowledge of the items.

The court assessed the credibility of witnesses and circumstantial evidence, particularly documents linking Burke to the room and inconsistencies in his testimony regarding his residence and the existence of "Kevin." The court found Burke guilty of firearms offences and simple possession of oxycodone and cocaine, but not guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking or possession of proceeds of crime, due to reasonable doubt on the latter charges.

At a preliminary hearing, the Crown sought committal of two defendants on various charges arising from a shooting investigation and subsequent search warrants.

The Crown did not seek committal of D.H. on the shooting or drugs charges, and D.H. conceded committal on a firearm charge.

The central issue was whether R.W. should be committed to stand trial for possession of drugs and proceeds of crime found in her apartment.

The justice found sufficient evidence to commit R.W. on counts for possession of marijuana, possession of methamphetamine for trafficking, and possession of heroin for trafficking, but discharged her on the proceeds of crime count.

During a criminal trial for drug importation, the accused challenged a second strip search conducted by RCMP officers after a prior search by border officials had already occurred.

The search was conducted in a cell with the door open and video surveillance operating, without supervisory authorization and without confirming whether a prior strip search had already taken place.

The court held that the second strip search was conducted as a matter of routine and lacked reasonable grounds, breaching the accused’s s. 8 Charter right against unreasonable search.

Applying the framework from Grant, the court concluded that the seriousness of the institutional breach outweighed the other factors.

The accused’s recorded police statement, obtained shortly after the search, was excluded under s. 24(2).

The accused was charged with failing to comply with a recognizance (x4), possession of marijuana, and possession of cocaine.

The Crown sought to introduce two certificates of an analyst pursuant to section 51 of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act to prove the nature of the substances seized.

The defence argued that the notice of intention to introduce the certificates was inadequate and confusing because it failed to specify which trial the certificates related to, given that the accused had other outstanding charges.

The court found the notice sufficient because the certificates contained identifying information (officer names and police seal numbers) that would have made clear which charges the notice related to, and there was no evidence that the accused had multiple outstanding charges on the date the notice was served.

The accused was charged with two counts of Fail to Comply with Recognizance, alleging breach of house arrest conditions and possession of alcohol contrary to a release undertaking.

The Crown sought to admit certified copies and exemplified documents (Information and Recognizance of Bail) under section 23 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The Crown conceded it had not provided adequate notice as required by section 28.

The Crown alternatively argued the documents were admissible under common law as exemplifications or as a principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court rejected both alternative arguments, holding that both certified copies and exemplifications require notice under the CEA, and that the documents could not satisfy the necessity requirement of the Khan exception since original documents were available.