Diane M. Lahaie

The accused was charged with possession of cannabis for the purpose of trafficking after police discovered 85.6 kilograms in the rear compartment of a pickup truck during a highway stop.

The defence sought exclusion of the evidence under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter, arguing the vehicle stop and subsequent search were unconstitutional.

The court found the officer’s explanation for the stop not credible and determined the stop was a pretext unrelated to road safety, amounting to arbitrary detention.

The warrantless search of the vehicle flowed directly from that unlawful detention and constituted an unreasonable search.

Applying s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court excluded the cannabis evidence and acquitted the accused.

Sentencing decision following guilty pleas to trafficking in a Schedule I substance (Oxycontin) under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and possession of proceeds of crime under the Criminal Code.

Police executed search warrants at two residences and seized large quantities of oxycodone pills with an estimated value of approximately $35,000, along with cash proceeds.

The offender had no prior criminal record and pleaded guilty early, but the court found significant aggravating factors including the large quantity of a hard drug and trafficking motivated by financial gain rather than addiction.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence in prescription opioid trafficking and rejected a conditional sentence.

A custodial sentence followed by probation was imposed.

The Crown appealed from the dismissal of provincial offences charges arising from the sale of cigarettes to a 16-year-old who produced a falsified school identification card.

The central issue was whether the statutory defence in s. 3(3) of the Tobacco Control Act, 1994 permitted reliance on identification other than the five forms listed in O. Reg. 613/94.

The court held that the regulation created an exhaustive list of prescribed identification and that the lower courts erred in treating it as merely illustrative.

The statutory due diligence defence was therefore unavailable on the facts, convictions were entered, and absolute discharges were granted.