The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for drug-related offences.
He argued that his rights under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter were violated during two separate incidents.
For the first incident, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding of no Charter breach, citing the cumulative effect of informant information and police observations, including an envelope from a hydroponics store and a constantly ringing cell phone.
For the second incident, the Court found no error in the trial judge's section 24(2) analysis admitting the evidence despite an assumed section 8 breach.
The Court also upheld the finding that the appellant had control of the drugs.
The appeal was dismissed.
