Catherine Hoffman

The accused were charged with possession of cocaine and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking after drugs were discovered beneath the driver’s seat of a vehicle.

The defence argued the Crown failed to prove the accused had knowledge or possession of the drugs, particularly with respect to the driver who was not directly linked to incriminating text messages.

The court considered circumstantial evidence including text messages arranging a drug transaction, the presence of six cell phones, the planned meeting location, and cash found in another vehicle connected to the transaction.

Applying the definition of possession under s. 4(3) of the Criminal Code as incorporated into the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the court concluded that both accused had knowledge of the drugs and intended to use them in a drug deal.

The Crown proved possession for the purpose of trafficking beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused brought a pre‑trial application seeking to quash a search warrant issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to exclude evidence seized during the execution of the warrant pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court held that the warrant authorizing the search of the residence was valid because the information from confidential informants, corroborated by police investigation, provided sufficient grounds for the justice of the peace to issue the warrant.

However, the warrant did not authorize the search of a motor vehicle located in the driveway, and the search of that vehicle constituted a warrantless search contrary to s. 8 of the Charter.

Applying the framework in R. v. Grant, the court concluded that the police acted in good faith and that the evidence, including a loaded handgun discovered in the vehicle, was highly probative.

The seized evidence was therefore admitted and the application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The accused were charged with possession of methamphetamine and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

In a pre-trial application, they argued their Charter rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10 were violated during a police stop in a parking lot, and sought exclusion of the seized drugs and cell phones under s. 24(2).

The court found that the accused were arbitrarily detained and their rights to counsel were violated, rendering the subsequent searches unreasonable.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the police acted in good faith and society's interest in adjudicating the serious charges on their merits outweighed the breaches.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.