Christie Black

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found no breach of sections 8 and 9, but found a breach of section 10(b) regarding the failure to inform the accused of his right to counsel.

However, the court concluded that the evidence was not obtained in a manner causally connected to the Charter breach and therefore section 24(2) did not apply.

The court found the accused guilty of the offence based on evidence establishing possession of a large quantity of cocaine (approximately 731.77 grams including packaging) that was ingested and surgically removed, with expert evidence establishing the quantity was inconsistent with personal use and consistent with trafficking.

The offender was convicted by a jury of two counts of importing opium and one count of possession for the purpose of trafficking, involving 3.6 kilograms of opium.

The Crown sought a six-year sentence, while the defence sought four years.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of the large quantity and the offender's role as a principal against mitigating factors including his lack of a prior criminal record and steady employment history.

The court imposed a global sentence of five years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, along with ancillary orders.

The applicants, charged with drug trafficking and firearms offences, brought a Charter application alleging that warrantless police entries into the common areas of their condominium building to conduct surveillance violated their section 8 rights.

The police used observations from this surveillance to obtain a search warrant for the applicants' unit.

The Superior Court of Justice found that while the first entry to ascertain the applicants' address did not violate section 8, the second entry to confirm drug trafficking activities in the hallway did, as the applicants had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Applying the Grant test under section 24(2), the court excluded the evidence found in the unit, concluding that the police showed reckless disregard for Charter standards and the impact on the applicants' privacy was significant.

The accused was charged with trafficking opium, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime following an undercover police operation and the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

While the accused pleaded guilty to the direct trafficking counts, he disputed possession of 809.61 grams of opium and $1,475 in cash found in a basement bedroom.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including the accused's access to the house, his ongoing trafficking activities, and personal items in the bedroom, led to the only reasonable inference that he occupied the room and had a measure of control over the drugs.

The accused was found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking, but acquitted of the proceeds of crime charge regarding the $1,475 due to reasonable doubt.

The accused called 911 after finding his girlfriend unconscious from a drug overdose.

After paramedics took her to the hospital, police remained in the apartment, detained the accused without advising him of his rights, and conducted a warrantless search, discovering firearms and drugs.

The court found multiple egregious Charter breaches, including arbitrary detention (s. 9), failure to provide right to counsel (s. 10), and unlawful search and seizure (s. 8).

The subsequent search warrant was quashed as it relied on tainted evidence.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court excluded the firearms and drugs due to the seriousness of the police misconduct and its impact on the accused's rights.

All charges were dismissed.

The accused, Di’on Jahil Wong, brought an application alleging breaches of his Charter rights under sections 8 (unreasonable search) and 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found that police delayed facilitating access to counsel without justification and conducted an unreasonable strip search without sufficient grounds, relying solely on the nature of the drug trafficking charge.

The court dismissed the s. 10(a) breach claim and found the pat-down search reasonable.

As a remedy for the s. 8 and s. 10(b) breaches, the court ordered a stay of all charges against the accused, emphasizing the need to denounce police misconduct and preserve the integrity of the justice system, particularly given the invasive and humiliating nature of the unjustified strip search.

The applicant, charged with drug-related offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was violated.

The total delay was 47 months.

The court deducted 15.5 months of defence delay and 9.3 months of exceptional circumstances delay due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The net delay fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant brought a pre-trial motion alleging violations of his rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter following the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

He challenged the validity of the telewarrant, the reasonable and probable grounds in the Information to Obtain, and the unannounced dynamic entry by police.

The court dismissed the s. 8 claims, finding the warrant valid and the entry justified by safety concerns.

The Crown conceded a s. 9 breach due to a 27-hour delay in bringing the applicant before a justice of the peace.

However, the court declined to order a stay of proceedings, finding that a reduction in sentence upon conviction would be an adequate alternative remedy.

The applicant brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings based on delay.

The applicant was arrested on August 28, 2018, and his trial was scheduled to conclude on February 24, 2020, just four days before the Jordan 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The applicant was in custody awaiting trial.

The court found that while the applicant demonstrated no defence delay and that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have, the applicant failed to establish that he took meaningful and sustained steps to expedite the proceedings.

Specifically, the applicant did not bring a severance application after learning that co-counsel scheduling issues would delay trial by almost one year, and took no proactive steps after trial dates were set.

The application was dismissed.