D. Santoro

The accused was charged with drug trafficking offences.

Police, wishing to protect an ongoing wiretap investigation, directed a traffic officer to conduct a pretext traffic stop of the accused, lie about the reason for the stop, and attempt to obtain consent to search his vehicle.

The accused was not informed of the true reason for his detention or his right to counsel.

When the accused tossed a bag to his wife, multiple officers rushed him, resulting in a physical altercation and broken ribs.

The court found egregious breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Grant and Regan frameworks, the court concluded that the deliberate police planning to bypass Charter protections constituted an abuse of process.

A stay of proceedings was ordered for all counts.

The applicants brought a Garofoli application challenging the validity of wiretap authorizations and related investigative orders obtained during an organized crime investigation into drug importation through Toronto Pearson International Airport.

They alleged that a police officer deliberately misled judicial officers through fraudulent or misleading statements and omissions in affidavits supporting production orders, dialled number recorder warrants, and the wiretap authorization.

The court reviewed allegations of misstatements, non‑disclosure, and conflation of information and applied the Garofoli framework, including excision and amplification of affidavit material where appropriate.

The court concluded that the inaccuracies were innocent errors rather than deliberate fraud and that, after correcting the affidavit, sufficient grounds remained to justify the authorization.

As a result, no Charter breach under s. 8 was established and the wiretap evidence remained admissible.

The applicant, sought by the United States for his alleged role in a massive tax fraud scheme, applied for bail pending his extradition hearing.

The Crown opposed release on the primary ground, arguing the applicant posed a significant flight risk.

The court found that the applicant had access to unrecovered funds, ties outside of Canada, and a history of using false addresses to conceal his whereabouts.

Furthermore, the proposed sureties were deemed inadequate to supervise the applicant or ensure his attendance in court.

The application for bail was denied.