Daniel R. Libman

The accused was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking following a traffic stop of a vehicle flagged in the CPIC system as a re-vinned crime vehicle.

The court found multiple Charter violations: a breach of section 10(b) rights to counsel when the accused made incriminating statements about marijuana without being advised of his rights, and a breach of section 8 rights against unreasonable search when police searched the accused's pockets and subsequently the vehicle without lawful authority.

The court excluded the heroin evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the seriousness of the breaches and the impact on the accused's rights outweighed society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The accused was convicted by a jury of importing 3.9 kg of opium.

The court determined the appropriate sentence, finding that the accused had actual knowledge of the opium and was a principal in the importation scheme, not merely a courier.

The court emphasized general deterrence and denunciation, distinguishing the case from others based on the accused's role and lack of significant mitigating personal circumstances.

A sentence of five years imprisonment was imposed, along with a weapons prohibition, victim surcharge, DNA order, and forfeiture order.

The accused was charged with trafficking heroin and claimed he was acting as a police agent under the direction and control of an unnamed detective, relying on the exemption in s. 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Police Enforcement) Regulation.

The Crown brought a motion arguing there was no air of reality to this defence.

The court reviewed the accused's testimony and found that he had explicitly rejected the detective's instructions and acted on his own initiative when arranging the drug transaction.

The court concluded there was no evidential foundation that the accused was acting under the direction and control of a police officer, and ruled the defence would not be put to the jury.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The Crown's case rested on breathalyzer readings of 118 mg and 110 mg.

The accused raised a bolus drinking defence, arguing that she had consumed most of the alcohol immediately before being stopped and that it had not been fully absorbed into her bloodstream at the time of driving.

The trial judge rejected the accused's evidence regarding the timing and volume of her alcohol consumption, finding her testimony not credible.

The trial judge also found problems with the expert evidence that was based on the accused's account.

The accused was convicted.

The applicant massage therapist sought judicial review of a caution issued by the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee regarding her advertising practices.

The Divisional Court first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the application, as the proceeding was initiated by a Registrar's report rather than a complaint, meaning no appeal lay to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

On the merits, the Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of natural justice and concluding that the strongly worded caution was appropriate remedial guidance rather than an unauthorized disciplinary reprimand.

Maple Lodge Farms was convicted of twenty counts of violating the Health of Animals Act and Regulations by failing to prevent undue suffering of chickens during transportation through inadequate protection from adverse weather and insufficient ventilation.

Between December 2008 and April 2010, over 25,450 chickens died during transport or upon arrival at the facility.

The corporation received a fine of $80,000 on two representative counts and a three-year suspended sentence with probation on the remaining eighteen counts.

The probation order required the corporation to expend a minimum of $1,000,000 on capital improvements to trailers, holding facilities, and transportation procedures, with oversight by an independent expert and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.