E. Ghebrai

The applicant, charged with several offences including sexual assault, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter for unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 41 months.

The court deducted three months for defence delay due to counsel's unavailability.

The court also deducted three months as a discrete exceptional circumstance due to the unavailability of the trial judge who was seized with a first-degree murder trial, and nine months due to the COVID-19 pandemic suspending jury trials.

The net delay of 26 months fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The court found the applicant did not demonstrate meaningful steps to expedite the proceedings, and dismissed the application.

During a jury trial for importing cocaine, the Crown objected to the defence counsel's reference to 'blind couriers' in their closing address, arguing there was no evidence of their existence.

The trial judge declined to instruct the jury to ignore the remark, finding it was a permissible submission that a person could import a substance without knowledge.

The judge noted that in a circumstantial case, inferences consistent with innocence do not require proven facts, and the agreed statement of facts already implied the existence of blind couriers.

The Crown brought a pretrial application to admit lay opinion evidence from a border services officer that the accused's empty small suitcase felt abnormally or unusually heavy.

The accused was charged with importing cocaine.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the officer lacked the necessary experiential capacity to form the opinion due to his inexperience.

Alternatively, the court held that the evidence's prejudicial effect outweighed its limited probative value, as the jury might unreasonably rely on it to infer the accused's knowledge of the cocaine.

The accused were found guilty by a jury of offences related to the importation of approximately one kilogram of heroin from Thailand.

Prior to sentencing, one of the accused applied for an inquiry into a juror who had sent an email to Crown counsel after the verdict expressing admiration.

The court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of pre-verdict communication or reasonable apprehension of bias.

On sentencing, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for heroin importation.

Igbinoba, who acted as a sophisticated conduit, was sentenced to 11 years.

Godwin, who was the intended recipient and more senior participant, was sentenced to 12 years.

Both received credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused applied to exclude evidence of a marijuana grow operation seized during the execution of a search warrant, arguing there was no reasonable basis for its issuance.

The court reviewed the Information to Obtain (ITO) and found that the affiant police officer had misled the issuing justice, lied about the accused's criminal record, and provided unreliable information from a confidential informant.

Applying the Garofoli step-six review, the court concluded the un-excised ITO could not support the warrant and that the officer's conduct was subversive to the prior authorization process.

The search warrant was quashed.