Christine Roth

The accused brought a Charter s. 8 application challenging the validity of search warrants executed at her home, restaurant, and vehicles in a drug trafficking investigation.

Police relied primarily on information from confidential informants and Crime Stoppers tips alleging drug dealing at a restaurant owned by the accused.

The court held that the Information to Obtain contained significant ambiguities regarding the identity of the female drug dealer and lacked sufficient corroboration linking the accused or her home to drug trafficking.

The issuing justice therefore lacked reasonable and probable grounds to authorize the search of the home.

The search violated s. 8 of the Charter, and after applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court excluded the drugs and money seized from the home.

The accused applied for leave to cross‑examine the affiant police officer regarding an information to obtain supporting several search warrants in a drug trafficking investigation.

The defence argued various alleged flaws and omissions in the affidavit undermined the existence of reasonable and probable grounds and justified cross‑examination under the Garofoli framework.

The court held that most proposed areas of questioning concerned alleged weaknesses on the face of the warrant that could be addressed through argument on a Charter s. 8 application and would not assist in discrediting the preconditions for issuance of the warrant.

Broad inquiries into confidential informant reliability were also rejected due to the risk of violating informer privilege.

Leave was granted only on a narrow ground permitting cross‑examination regarding the affiant’s experience with drug investigations and the basis for believing evidence would be found at the accused’s residence.

The offender was found guilty of second-degree murder for stabbing his mother to death.

The Crown sought a 15-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought the minimum 10 years.

The court considered the profound breach of trust in a domestic relationship, the brutal nature of the attack involving multiple weapons, and the offender's criminal record.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 15 years.

During a trial for second-degree murder, the Crown sought to introduce statements made by the accused to police during a lengthy interrogation.

The court applied the Oickle framework to assess voluntariness.

While the initial portions of the interview were voluntary, the court found that the police crossed the line by suggesting the accused needed to 'spin' his story for the courts and that his lawyer would not investigate his side.

This constituted an improper inducement that overbore the accused's will.

The statements made after this point were ruled involuntary and inadmissible.