Claude Richer

The accused was charged with conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and marijuana, trafficking, and participating in a criminal organization.

The Crown's case relied heavily on police surveillance, tracking devices, and intercepted messages from an encrypted PGP cellphone.

The court found that the accused used specific monikers in the encrypted communications to coordinate the shipment of drugs and money.

The court concluded that the accused actively assisted both the seller and purchaser in drug transactions and contributed to the activities of a structured criminal organization.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

This is a pre-trial application by the Crown in a criminal proceeding against Keith Ritchie, who is charged with drug trafficking and criminal organization offenses.

The Crown sought to admit the sworn statement of Salvatore Larizza, a deceased witness, and the transcript of a guilty plea entered by co-accused Frank Muzzi.

The court applied the principled approach to hearsay, finding that the Larizza statement met the criteria of necessity (due to death) and threshold reliability (due to circumstances of making and corroborative evidence).

However, while the fact of Muzzi's guilty plea was admissible, the underlying facts from its transcript were not, as the Crown failed to establish necessity for Muzzi's testimony.

The application to admit the Larizza statement and the fact of Muzzi's guilty plea was allowed, but the transcript of Muzzi's plea facts was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with drug and criminal organization offences, brought a pre-trial application seeking a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging his s. 7 rights were violated due to lost police surveillance video.

The video was automatically erased by a recording device's factory default setting.

The court applied the framework for lost evidence, finding the Crown met its burden to show the loss was not due to unacceptable negligence.

The court also found no abuse of process and no irreparable prejudice to the applicant's right to a fair trial, as the video's value was speculative and alternative evidence (officer notes) was available.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought to excise paragraphs from an Information to Obtain (ITO) a Production Order and search warrant for his residence.

The applicant argued that the information was obtained through an unlawful search of a third party's cell phone, which had previously been ruled a breach of the third party's s. 8 Charter rights.

The court dismissed the application, holding that an accused must establish an independent privacy interest in the evidence to have standing to seek excision based on a Charter breach.

Since the applicant had no expectation of privacy in the messages on the third party's phone, he could not rely on the third party's s. 8 breach to seek a remedy under s. 24(2).

On a voir dire in a drug prosecution, the accused sought to exclude evidence obtained from a BlackBerry device seized by police, alleging a breach of s. 8 of the Charter.

The Crown argued the accused lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy and alternatively had abandoned the device when he removed the battery and threw it to the ground during a police approach.

The court held that while possession alone is insufficient, the accused established a reasonable expectation of privacy through possession, knowledge of the password, and prior use of the device.

The court further held that the act of removing the battery and throwing the device did not amount to abandonment but was more consistent with an attempt to preserve privacy.

The accused therefore retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in the device and its contents.

The applicant sought the release of seized cash under s. 462.34 of the Criminal Code to fund legal expenses in pending criminal proceedings.

Police had seized more than $1 million in cash during a search that also uncovered drugs and other evidence.

The court accepted that the seized funds were available for potential release and that the applicant had established sole entitlement to the money despite arguments about possible competing claims.

However, the applicant failed to demonstrate financial need, as required under s. 462.34, given inconsistencies between his claimed lack of assets and evidence that he possessed substantial unexplained cash and lived in a mortgage-free home.

The application for release of funds for legal fees was therefore denied.

The accused applied for a review of a detention order under section 520 of the Criminal Code.

The accused was charged with instructing a criminal organization and drug trafficking offences, with the Crown's case relying heavily on evidence obtained from an encrypted mobile device.

The reviewing judge found the Justice of the Peace committed errors in principle by making logically inconsistent findings between the primary and secondary grounds, and by failing to adequately consider the impact of a section 8 Charter argument on the strength of the Crown's case.

Furthermore, late disclosure revealing that police searched the device without a warrant and failed to obtain an extension for its detention constituted a material change in circumstances.

The detention order was vacated and the accused was released on strict conditions with substantial sureties.