David Holmes

The accused brought a Charter motion under s. 24(2) seeking exclusion of evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for a suspected cannabis grow operation.

They alleged the Information to Obtain contained misleading statements and inadequate disclosure and sought leave to cross-examine the affiant officer under the Garofoli framework.

The court held that the accused had standing to bring the application as residents of the searched property and permitted limited cross‑examination concerning alleged discrepancies in the officer’s description of another officer’s observations.

After reviewing the evidence and the affidavit supporting the warrant, the court concluded that reasonable and probable grounds existed for the issuance of the warrant.

The search warrant was found to be valid and the evidence admissible.

The applicants brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of cocaine evidence following a traffic stop and subsequent searches.

The court found that the passenger was psychologically detained when police requested identification and that using the passenger’s health card to conduct a CPIC check breached s. 8 of the Charter.

Although a protective pat‑down search was justified for officer safety, opening a cigarette package discovered during the search exceeded the lawful scope and constituted an unreasonable search.

The court also found there were no reasonable grounds to arrest the driver for possession based solely on cocaine found on the passenger.

However, the vehicle search that uncovered a larger quantity of cocaine was justified as a lawful inventory search following mandatory vehicle impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act, and the evidence was therefore admissible.

The accused was charged with drug and firearm offences after police discovered a large-scale marihuana grow operation and a loaded rifle on his property.

The accused claimed he was held captive by two men who forced him to take responsibility for the drugs under threat of violence.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as not credible, applying the W.(D.) framework, and found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in sole control of the property, the drugs, and the firearm.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The grievor filed a grievance objecting that he was not interviewed for an Area Appraisal Analyst position.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was not arbitrable, arguing that management has the right to select whom to interview and there was no allegation of bias or procedural flaw.

The Public Service Grievance Board agreed with the employer, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to second-guess management's selection of interviewees absent allegations of a flawed, biased, or discriminatory process.

The grievance was dismissed as not arbitrable.