Chris De Sa

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking and proceeds of crime offences, brought applications challenging the admissibility of evidence seized during a search of his residence.

He argued that the Step Six procedure under R. v. Garofoli for reviewing redacted search warrant informations violates section 7 of the Charter by denying the right to make full answer and defence.

He also argued that the redacted Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient detail to justify the warrant, violating his section 8 Charter rights.

The court dismissed both applications, finding that the Step Six procedure provides a fair hearing in context and that the judicial summaries of the confidential informant's information provided sufficient grounds to uphold the warrant.

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking, brought a section 8 Charter application to exclude evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant.

The applicant argued that the police fabricated the existence of a confidential informant or the information provided, and that the information was absurd and uncorroborated.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the information provided by the confidential informant was compelling, credible, and strongly corroborated by police investigation, providing a sufficient basis for the issuing judge to grant the warrant.

The accused brought an application to stay charges of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, alleging a breach of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay was 39 months, breaching the 30-month ceiling established in Jordan.

The court calculated the net delay at 34 months after deducting 5 months of defence delay.

Because this was a transitional case, the court applied the transitional exceptional circumstances doctrine, finding that the parties reasonably relied on the previous Morin framework and that the delay would not have warranted a stay under Morin.

The application was dismissed.

The accused, Hai Thi Pham, was convicted of producing marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

She challenged the two and three-year mandatory minimum sentences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) as violating s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found both mandatory minimums grossly disproportionate in reasonably foreseeable hypothetical scenarios involving licensed production and mistakes of law, and thus unconstitutional under s. 12 and not saved by s. 1.

Consequently, the court imposed a 10-month custodial sentence, followed by 18 months probation, a 10-year firearms prohibition, and forfeiture of grow-op equipment, considering aggravating factors (large commercial operation, public safety hazard, property damage) and mitigating factors (first offender, family, mental health issues, sentencing delay).

The accused, Randeep Sandhu, brought a mid-trial motion seeking disclosure of a confidential informant's identity and a stay of proceedings, arguing the informant was either a police agent or a material witness.

The court conducted an in-camera hearing and an open-court hearing, ultimately finding that the informant was not a police agent and that the "innocence at stake" exception to informer privilege was not engaged, as Sandhu failed to demonstrate the informant was likely to provide evidence creating reasonable doubt about his innocence.

The motion was dismissed.

Kevine Brown was convicted of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the large quantity of heroin (over one kilogram), the accused's wilful blindness to the package's contents, and his willingness to expose his sister to significant risk.

Mitigating factors included his severe health problems and family support.

The court emphasized general deterrence as the primary sentencing principle for major drug cases.

A sentence of nine years in the penitentiary was imposed, with credit for pre-trial custody resulting in a net sentence of seven years and one month.

The accused, Abdullahi Abti Rage, was charged with multiple counts of trafficking cocaine and possession of cocaine and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

A key evidentiary issue arose regarding the admissibility of hearsay statements made by a co-actor, Ali Ahmed, to an undercover officer.

The defence argued these statements were for narrative only, while the Crown sought to admit them for their truth under the co-conspirator's exception.

The court found the statements presumptively admissible under the R. v. Carter test but acknowledged a miscommunication between counsel regarding their use.

Despite the miscommunication, the court determined that even without relying on the hearsay for its truth, the direct evidence overwhelmingly proved the accused's guilt on the cocaine trafficking and possession charges.

The accused was found guilty of three counts of trafficking cocaine, one count of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and the lesser included offence of simple possession of marijuana.

The accused was arrested following a controlled delivery of a package containing heroin.

During a police interview, he made inculpatory statements.

On a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the statements, the accused argued his s. 10(b) Charter rights were breached and that police offered an inducement regarding leniency for his sister, rendering the confession involuntary.

The court found no Charter breach, as the accused spontaneously spoke upon arrest without being questioned.

The court also applied the Oickle framework and concluded that the police comments did not amount to a strong inducement or quid pro quo that overbore the accused's will.

The statements were ruled voluntary and admissible.

The accused was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking after an undercover RCMP officer conducted a controlled delivery of a package from Tanzania.

The package, containing over a kilogram of heroin, was delivered to the accused's sister's apartment.

The accused had instructed his sister to sign for the package using a false name.

The court found that while actual knowledge of the heroin was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused was wilfully blind to the contents of the package, having admitted he suspected it contained drugs but deliberately choosing not to make further inquiries.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with drug offences after two packages containing heroin were intercepted.

Following a preliminary inquiry, the accused was discharged on several counts, but the Crown preferred an indictment including charges related to both packages.

The accused brought an application to quash the count relating to the second package, arguing there was no evidence of knowledge or control.

The court granted the application, finding that the modus operandi of the two packages was not sufficiently similar to infer knowledge and control of the second package based on the first.

The defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking in crack cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime after selling drugs to an undercover police officer.

He brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing entrapment.

The undercover officer had called a phone number provided by a confidential informant and, after a brief initial exchange, asked to purchase drugs.

The court found that the police were conducting a bona fide investigation and had reasonable suspicion before presenting the opportunity to commit the offence.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant at his apartment, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) was insufficient.

The warrant was based on a tip from a confidential informant who had purchased crack cocaine from the accused.

Applying the Debot test, the court found the informant's information was highly compelling and sufficiently corroborated by police surveillance, compensating for weaknesses in the informant's inherent credibility.

The court concluded there was a solid basis for the justice of the peace to issue the warrant and dismissed the application.

Applicants sought to vary or terminate sealing orders made in relation to two search warrants executed on their home in 2013 and 2014.

No items were seized and no charges were laid.

The Crown provided redacted copies of the Informations to Obtain (ITOs), with redactions limited to information that might identify confidential informants.

The applicants challenged the scope of the redactions and sought full access to the ITOs.

The court held that once a search warrant is executed, the warrant and ITO are presumptively accessible to the occupiers of the searched premises, subject only to redactions necessary to protect confidential informant identity.

The court ordered the Crown to produce unredacted copies for judicial review to ensure redactions were not overbroad.

The accused was tried on multiple drug trafficking counts and possession of proceeds of crime after police executed a search warrant at a shared apartment and discovered drugs, cash, packaging materials, and a hidden stash of heroin in a modified Nestea container in the kitchen.

The Crown relied heavily on the testimony of a co‑accused who claimed the accused owned the heroin.

The court found the co‑accused's evidence unreliable due to inconsistent statutory declarations and a clear motive to implicate the accused to obtain favourable treatment from the Crown.

In the absence of independent confirmatory evidence connecting the accused to the heroin stash, the court held that possession was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted of heroin, oxycodone, and MDMA trafficking counts but convicted of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime based on drugs, scales, packaging materials, and cash found in his bedroom.