C. Bundy

The accused, an airport employee charged with importing cocaine and firearms offences, applied for a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on a new release plan with substantial sureties.

However, after conducting a fresh analysis, the court dismissed the application, finding that detention remained necessary on both the secondary ground (substantial likelihood of reoffending) and the tertiary ground (maintaining confidence in the administration of justice) given the overwhelming evidence, the gravity of the offences, and the accused's access to firearms.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of cocaine and cash seized during a warrantless search following a traffic stop.

He alleged breaches of ss. 8, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter after police concealed the true reason for his detention and delayed advising him of his right to counsel.

The court found no s. 8 breach because reasonable and probable grounds existed based on wiretap intelligence and surveillance.

However, deliberate breaches of ss. 10(a) and 10(b) occurred when police misled the accused about the reason for detention and failed to promptly advise him of his right to counsel or facilitate a requested call.

Applying the s. 24(2) Grant analysis, the court held the breaches were brief and had minimal practical impact, and that society’s interest in adjudication on the merits favoured admission of the reliable physical evidence.

Following conviction after trial for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the offender was sentenced for arranging to purchase a large quantity of cocaine through an RCMP reverse sting operation.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the scale of the intended transaction, the offender’s criminal record, and evidence that he was armed and prepared to use violence to protect the drugs.

The court rejected arguments that delay between the offence and sentencing should substantially mitigate the sentence and declined to apply the totality principle based on earlier convictions arising from the same investigation.

Credit of 1.5:1 was applied for 511 days of pre-sentence custody.

A lengthy penitentiary term was imposed along with firearms prohibition, DNA order, and delayed parole eligibility.