Darren Anger

The accused brought pre-trial motions to exclude evidence in a drug trafficking prosecution involving heroin, fentanyl, cocaine, and psilocybin.

The accused challenged the sufficiency of the search warrants for two motel rooms, sought leave to cross-examine the affiant, and alleged Charter breaches regarding unlawful detention, strip searches, and delayed implementation of the right to counsel.

The court dismissed all motions, finding the warrants sufficient, the detention and strip searches justified, and that while the right to counsel was breached by delay, no evidence was obtained as a result of that breach.

The accused brought a motion to quash a search warrant and exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained misleading information and material omissions.

The warrant authorized a search of the accused’s rural property, resulting in the seizure of marijuana plants, firearms, and other drug-related items.

The court applied the Garofoli framework to assess whether the issuing justice could have granted the authorization based on the record, including information provided by multiple confidential informants.

The court found the informants’ information to be credible, mutually corroborative, and sufficiently detailed to establish reasonable and probable grounds.

The motion to quash the warrant and exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The accused was arrested at Pearson International Airport after a detector dog alerted to her and a secondary inspection revealed cocaine hidden in her luggage.

She brought a pre-trial motion to exclude evidence, alleging multiple Charter violations and involuntary statements.

The court held that a dog sniff at a border crossing does not violate s. 8 due to a reduced expectation of privacy.

However, the court found a s. 10(b) violation due to an unjustified delay of one hour and forty minutes in implementing her right to counsel, and a s. 8 violation because a customs officer conducted a strip search as a matter of routine policy rather than on individualized grounds.

Consequently, statements made by the accused during the delay in accessing counsel were excluded under s. 24(2), and statements made to an RCMP officer under the guise of bail questions were excluded as involuntary.