Edward J. Posliff

The accused was sentenced on two indictments for multiple Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) and Criminal Code offences, including possession for the purpose of trafficking in heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine, as well as firearms offences, proceeds of crime, and breaches of prohibition orders and recognizance.

The court considered aggravating factors such as a lengthy criminal record, quantities of drugs, and commission of offences while on bail.

Mitigating factors included a guilty plea for the second indictment and an apology.

The court applied the totality principle to arrive at a global sentence of 12 years, reduced by pre-sentence custody and a one-year credit for the harsher conditions of incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicants, who were charged with conspiracy to traffic in a controlled substance, brought applications under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence obtained from wiretap and dialed number recorder (DNR) authorizations.

They argued that the authorizations violated their s. 8 Charter rights because the informations to obtain (ITOs) contained false, misleading, and unconstitutionally obtained information, and that the issuing judge for the DNRs demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court found that while some information in the ITOs had to be excised, including jail visitor logs obtained in breach of s. 8, the remaining evidence was sufficient to support the issuance of the authorizations.

The court also found no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applications to exclude the evidence were dismissed.

The accused, charged with drug trafficking conspiracy, brought applications for a stay of proceedings alleging their s. 11(b) Charter rights to a trial within a reasonable time were infringed.

The total delay was 41.5 months.

Applying the Jordan framework, the court deducted defence delay and delay caused by discrete exceptional circumstances, including a judge's conflict of interest and an unexpectedly lengthy preliminary hearing.

The remaining delay fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The court also found that the transitional exceptional circumstance applied, as the parties reasonably relied on the prior Morin framework.

The applications for a stay were dismissed.

The accused brought a Charter application at the commencement of his trial seeking to exclude a firearm, ammunition, and cocaine seized by police during a street stop.

The court found that the police arbitrarily detained the accused without reasonable suspicion, violating his s. 9 Charter rights.

This unlawful detention also resulted in breaches of his s. 8 right against unreasonable search and s. 10(b) right to counsel.

However, applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the police acted in good faith and the evidence was highly reliable and essential to the prosecution.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The accused, Asser Omar Gayle, was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking.

He challenged the lawfulness of his arrest and subsequent search, alleging breaches of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and sought to exclude the evidence under section 24(2).

The court found that the police lacked objective reasonable grounds for the arrest, thus breaching sections 9 and 8.

However, applying the R. v. Grant framework, the court balanced the seriousness of the state conduct (police acted in good faith but showed lack of professionalism in testimony), the impact on the accused's Charter interests (reduced expectation of privacy in a vehicle, respectful treatment), and society's interest in adjudication on the merits (highly reliable evidence, exclusion would gut the Crown's case).

Ultimately, the court concluded that the factors favoring admission outweighed those favoring exclusion, and the evidence was admitted.

The accused challenged the legality of their arrests and searches conducted incident to arrest following execution of a search warrant for an apartment suspected of drug trafficking.

The police relied primarily on information from two confidential informants, one of whom was not of proven reliability, and failed to disclose material information in the information to obtain (ITO), including criminal histories and financial motivations of the sources.

The court found the tips lacked independent corroboration and did not meet the constitutional threshold of reasonable grounds for arrest or entry into a residence.

As a result, the arrests and searches violated s. 8 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court held the Charter breaches were serious and systemic and excluded the seized evidence under s. 24(2).