Colleen Elizabeth Liggett

The accused brought Charter applications challenging the lawfulness of General Warrants and Search Warrants executed in a drug trafficking investigation.

The General Warrants, issued for covert surveillance of two residential locations, failed to include the statutorily required notice provision under section 487.01(5.1) of the Criminal Code, constituting a facial invalidity and breach of section 8 of the Charter.

The Search Warrants were subsequently obtained using information derived from the facially invalid General Warrants.

The court found that while the General Warrants were facially invalid due to the missing notice provision, the Search Warrants could otherwise have been issued based on the totality of the evidence, including amplified tracking data.

The court also addressed allegations of arbitrary detention and breach of the right to counsel.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the Charter applications, finding that despite the breaches, the admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute under the section 24(2) analysis.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of drug and firearm offences.

He appealed his conviction, arguing that the search warrant used to obtain evidence was improperly issued.

Specifically, he contended that the Information to Obtain (ITO) was misleading and that tips from confidential informants (CIs) and an anonymous caller were not sufficiently compelling, credible, or corroborated to establish reasonable and probable grounds.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly applied the legal test for reviewing search warrants and the `Debot` criteria for assessing CI reliability.

The court concluded that the issuing justice had reasonable and probable grounds to issue the warrant, even if certain information in the ITO were excised.

The applicant, convicted of fentanyl trafficking, sought bail pending his application for leave to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Crown opposed, arguing the application was frivolous and detention was necessary in the public interest.

The court found the proposed application for leave had low to nil chances of success, as the Court of Appeal had already thoroughly addressed the Charter issues.

The court emphasized the high public interest in enforceability, particularly given the gravity of large-scale fentanyl trafficking, which outweighed the applicant's health concerns.

The application for bail was dismissed.

The appellant, a pharmacist, was convicted of trafficking in fentanyl, fraud, and public mischief, and sentenced to 14 years' incarceration.

He appealed both his conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's Charter rulings (s. 11(b), s. 7, s. 8) or assessment of evidence, including the handling of a Vetrovec witness.

However, the court granted leave to appeal the sentence, finding that the trial judge erred by failing to sufficiently apply the principle of restraint for a first-time offender with health issues.

The sentence was reduced from 14 years to 12 years imprisonment.

The appellant, Forhad Ahmed Choudhury, appealed convictions for drug trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and firearms offences.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario quashed one trafficking conviction due to insufficient evidence, substituted a conviction for simple possession on another count, and ordered a new trial for the remaining drug and firearms offences.

The court found the trial judge erred in conflating the appellant's access to a room with constructive possession of contraband found within, failing to adequately analyze knowledge and control based on circumstantial evidence.

Moussa Jaber pleaded guilty to multiple drug trafficking and firearms offences, possession of proceeds of crime, and breach of probation.

The Crown sought an 11-year global sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence, citing exceptional rehabilitation.

The court found that while the offender had made significant rehabilitative efforts and was at low risk to reoffend, these did not constitute "exceptional circumstances" sufficient to justify a non-custodial or conditional sentence given the gravity of the offences, particularly the large quantities of fentanyl/heroin, methamphetamine, cannabis, and the presence of two loaded restricted firearms and substantial cash proceeds.

The court emphasized general deterrence and denunciation.

A global sentence of 4 years imprisonment was imposed, with concurrent sentences for other counts, along with a lifetime firearms prohibition and DNA order.

The accused was charged with trafficking cocaine.

The court applied the co-actor's exception to the hearsay rule (Carter test) to admit intercepted communications.

The court found a common unlawful design to traffic cocaine and that the accused was a participant based on direct and inferential evidence, including surveillance and phone communications.

The accused's arguments regarding the necessity of calling a co-actor witness and the credibility of a police agent were rejected.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts.

The accused was charged with multiple Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences arising from a joint federal and provincial investigation.

The Crown alleged that the accused knowingly possessed and stored restricted and prohibited firearms, ammunition, crack cocaine, and drug paraphernalia in a shared storage locker.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence and testimony from the co-accused.

The court found that while the circumstances were suspicious, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had actual knowledge of the contents of the bags he delivered to the storage facility, nor could willful blindness be established.

The accused was acquitted of counts 1-30 but found guilty of unlawful possession of ammunition while prohibited.

The accused, facing drug charges following a vehicle search, brought an application for the disclosure of police GPS tracking data to challenge the arresting officers' version of events and support a Charter claim of unreasonable search.

The court held that police GPS data, while not gathered primarily as an investigative tool, relates to the investigation and falls under the Crown's first-party disclosure obligations under Stinchcombe rather than the third-party O'Connor regime.

Finding the data relevant to the accused's defence, the court ordered its production but narrowed the temporal scope of the request.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking Schedule I substances under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Police executed a search warrant at the defendant's residence and seized cocaine, cannabis, methamphetamine, MDMA, oxycodone, oxycontin, digital scales, drug packaging materials, cell phones, and a shotgun with ammunition.

The defendant, a 26-year-old first-time offender with stable employment and family responsibilities, was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment concurrent on all counts, with ancillary orders for DNA collection, a ten-year firearms prohibition, and forfeiture of seized items.

The applicant sought to invalidate a search warrant and exclude evidence obtained through police surveillance, arguing that observations made in a condominium parking garage and common areas constituted warrantless and unreasonable searches under section 8 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas and that the police conduct fell within the implied license doctrine, thus upholding the search warrant's validity.

The Crown sought to amend count six of the indictment, which initially charged possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, to reflect an unloaded firearm with readily accessible ammunition, and to reopen its case to adduce expert evidence on ammunition capability.

The accused opposed, arguing prejudice.

The court granted the Crown's requests, finding no irreparable prejudice to the accused, noting that the defense of "knowledge and control" would remain unchanged and that the error in the indictment was inadvertent.

Scott John Harquail pleaded guilty to one count of possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and three counts of trafficking crack cocaine.

The Crown and defence presented a joint submission for a 30-month (900-day) sentence.

The primary issue was the credit for pre-trial custody, specifically whether additional enhanced credit beyond the standard 1.5:1 ratio was warranted due to harsh conditions, including lockdowns and inadequate medical/dental treatment.

The court accepted the joint submission for the gross sentence and granted an additional 45 days of enhanced credit for the harsh pre-trial conditions, particularly the neglect of a significant dental issue and lack of follow-up for Hepatitis C.

The applicants sought to vary a sealing order under s. 487.3(4) of the Criminal Code to obtain access to the Information to Obtain search warrants executed at two residences.

They argued that, as non‑accused persons affected by the search, they had a presumptive right to access the materials in order to assess potential Charter s. 8 violations.

The Crown opposed, arguing that a non‑accused must first present some evidence suggesting the authorization was obtained unlawfully before a court will review sealed materials.

The court adopted the approach from Michaud v. Quebec (Attorney General) and R. v. Schmidt, requiring a preliminary evidentiary basis before varying a sealing order.

Because the applicants filed no evidence suggesting unlawful authorization of the warrants, the application was dismissed.

The offender was convicted after trial of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of oxycodone and methamphetamine, possession of ammunition while prohibited, and breach of probation.

Police surveillance and a search warrant led to the discovery of packaged cocaine, pills, brass knuckles, and multiple cell phones in the offender’s vehicle, as well as ammunition in his residence.

The offender had a prior criminal record including a previous conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking and was on probation for a violent offence at the time of the new offences.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for cocaine trafficking offences while considering the offender’s criminal history and the relatively small quantity of drugs involved.

A sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment was imposed, less credit for 315 days of pre-trial custody, along with ancillary DNA, weapons prohibition, and forfeiture orders.