Connor Macorin

This decision addresses the application to exclude evidence seized during a warrantless search conducted under s. 12(3) of the Cannabis Control Act (CCA).

The police officer stopped the accused for a traffic violation and observed a cannabis vape pen in the vehicle, which he believed constituted reasonable grounds to conduct a search.

The Court found that the vape pen is paraphernalia and not cannabis itself, and that the officer lacked objectively reasonable grounds to conduct the search without further investigation.

The Court also found a breach of the accused’s s. 10(b) Charter right due to delay in informing him of his right to counsel.

Balancing the factors under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the Court excluded the evidence due to serious Charter breaches despite the good faith of the officer.

The Crown appealed an application judge's order staying drug trafficking proceedings against the respondents due to a breach of their right to trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The delay exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling, and the Crown argued the delay was justified by the complexity of the multi-accused project investigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's conclusion that the Crown failed to meet its burden to show the case was sufficiently complex to justify the delay, particularly since the respondents were not participating in a lengthy pre-trial application that complicated other related prosecutions.

Rushaune Champagnie pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought an 8-year sentence, while the defence sought 7 years with additional credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed a sentence of 6.5 years concurrent on both counts, acknowledging the serious nature of the offence and the offender's lengthy record, but also considering his difficult upbringing, significant mitigating circumstances, and particularly harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court declined to apply additional credit for lockdown days beyond the statutory Summers credit, instead treating harsh conditions as a mitigating factor.

The accused brought Charter motions (ss. 7, 10(a), 10(b)) to exclude drug and money evidence in a trial for possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court found no s. 7 violation regarding police body-worn camera (BWC) muting or late activation, as no evidence was "lost" and no prejudice was demonstrated.

However, the court found s. 10(a) and 10(b) violations due to delayed and incomplete advisement of rights upon detention and arrest.

Applying the s. 24(2) Grant analysis, the court determined that the evidence should not be excluded, weighing the seriousness of the breaches (moderate, good faith, fluid situation) against the minimal impact on the accused's Charter interests (no incriminating statements, evidence discoverable) and society's strong interest in adjudicating serious drug offences on their merits.

The motions to exclude evidence were dismissed, and the accused was found guilty on all counts.

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.