D. Moffat

The applicant, Leon Kofman, charged with drug and weapon offenses, sought to exclude evidence obtained from searches of two residential condominiums pursuant to a search warrant.

The applicant alleged a violation of his section 8 Charter right to be free from unreasonable search or seizure, arguing the Information To Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable grounds to connect drug trafficking to the target locations and was misleading.

The court found the ITO deficient and misleading, concluding that the warrant could not have issued and the searches were unlawful, thus breaching the applicant's section 8 Charter rights.

Applying the R. v. Grant factors, the court determined that the seriousness of the state conduct (reckless and negligent ITO preparation), the significant impact on the applicant's high expectation of privacy in his residences, and the societal interest in maintaining the repute of justice (despite the importance of the evidence to the Crown's case) favoured exclusion.

Consequently, all evidence seized from both condominiums was excluded.

The defendant, Mizanur Rahman, was charged with possession of cocaine and marijuana for the purposes of trafficking.

Police surveillance observed the defendant in a vehicle making short stops consistent with drug transactions.

A subsequent arrest and vehicle search yielded drugs and drug paraphernalia.

The defendant and a defence witness, Bonnie Kerr, provided explanations for the drugs and the defendant's cellphone activity, which the court found to be unreliable and incredible.

Despite strong suspicion of the defendant's involvement, the court determined that the circumstantial evidence, particularly regarding the defendant's knowledge of the drugs in the vehicle and the intent to traffic, did not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court rejected the incoming text messages as hearsay for the truth of their contents due to insufficient indicia of necessity and reliability.

Consequently, the defendant was found not guilty on both counts.

The defendant, Andrew Paxton, applied to quash search warrants for his vehicle and residence, and to exclude evidence found under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found the warrant for the vehicle valid due to compelling anonymous tips corroborated by police surveillance.

However, the warrant for the residence was deemed invalid due to insufficient connection between the drugs and the dwelling unit.

Despite the Charter breach for the residence search, the court applied the inevitable discovery doctrine under section 24(2) of the Charter, concluding that the evidence from the residence would have been discovered anyway after the lawful vehicle search.

Therefore, the application to exclude evidence was dismissed, and all evidence was admitted.

The accused was charged with possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking after being observed by police carrying a garbage bag containing 8.5 kg of marihuana.

The bag had been handed to him by a known drug trafficker during police surveillance.

The accused argued he was merely assisting an acquaintance and did not know the contents of the bag.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the requisite knowledge or intent to possess the drugs, or that he knowingly aided the trafficker.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was convicted of possessing hydromorphone and oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking, and simple possession of ecstasy.

The Crown sought a two-year penitentiary sentence while the defence sought twelve months.

The court imposed a twenty-two month sentence for the hydromorphone trafficking count, concurrent fourteen-month sentence for oxycodone trafficking, and concurrent forty-five day sentence for ecstasy possession.

The court applied Gladue principles while recognizing that heroin and its equivalents attract penitentiary sentences absent exceptional circumstances.

The court balanced the serious nature of the offence against the offender's rehabilitation prospects and aboriginal ancestry.

The applicants sought exclusion of marijuana plants seized during execution of a search warrant, arguing the information to obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient grounds and violated s. 8 of the Charter.

The warrant relied primarily on an anonymous Crimestoppers tip alleging marijuana cultivation, corroborated by limited police investigation including database checks, surveillance, and confirmation of background details.

The court held that, considering the totality of the circumstances, the tip contained sufficient detail and the police investigation provided adequate corroboration to establish credibly based probability for issuance of the warrant.

The search and seizure were therefore lawful.

In the alternative, the court held that even if a breach occurred, the evidence would be admissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter.