E. Hilzenrat

The Crown closed its case in a trial where the accused were charged with possession of various prohibited substances for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime.

The accused brought motions for directed verdicts of acquittal on all counts.

The court granted the directed verdict of acquittal for the charge of possession of property obtained by crime, finding no reasonable inference could connect the seized cash to drug trafficking.

However, the court dismissed the motions for the drug trafficking charges, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence of constructive possession and intent to traffic for a reasonable jury to potentially convict.

The applicants, charged with drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, sought to exclude evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant at a rural property, alleging violations of their s. 10(a) and (b) Charter rights.

The court found moderate and minor breaches of s. 10(a) and (b) due to a delay in transporting one applicant to the police detachment to contact counsel and a failure to promptly inform both applicants of additional charges.

However, the court found no breach of the duty to hold off eliciting evidence.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the breaches were not deliberate or systemic, had a minor impact on the applicants' Charter-protected interests, and society's interest favoured adjudication on the merits.

The application to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired and refusing to provide a breath sample.

At trial, the appellant was self-represented.

The appeal court found that the trial judge failed to explain the presumption of care or control under s. 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, which compromised the fairness of the trial on that charge as the appellant could not make an informed decision about calling evidence.

The appeal was allowed in part, with a new trial ordered for the care or control charge, while the conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample was upheld.

The appellant appealed her conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample.

She argued the trial judge erred in finding her refusal was unequivocal, misapprehended evidence, and improperly rejected her reasonable excuse defence based on a respiratory infection.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant was intentionally delaying the investigation was reasonable and supported by video evidence.

The court also held there was no material misapprehension of evidence and the trial judge properly applied credibility assessment principles.