Elijah Vincent Zivot Lo Re

The appellant, Michael Weber, failed to surrender into custody as required by a court order and did not appear in court for his appeal.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed his appeal as abandoned.

The defendant, Rapinder Bains, applied for a stay of proceedings based on entrapment, arguing that police investigator DC Khan lacked reasonable suspicion when providing an opportunity to commit a drug trafficking offence.

The court found that DC Khan possessed the requisite reasonable suspicion, supported by a confidential human source (CHS) tip and prior text communications indicating drug trafficking activity associated with the target phone number.

The court emphasized that the defendant's unsolicited communication initiated the interaction and that the case did not involve random virtue-testing.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence seized under a search warrant and utterances made upon arrest, alleging breaches of s. 8 (unreasonable search) and s. 10(b) (right to counsel) of the Charter.

The court found the Information to Obtain (ITO) for the search warrant contained significant inaccuracies and misleading information regarding the applicant's residence at the searched unit, leading to a s. 8 breach.

A delay in providing access to counsel also constituted a s. 10(b) breach.

Applying the R. v. Grant factors, the court determined that the serious state misconduct and significant impact on the applicant's privacy and counsel rights warranted exclusion of the evidence and utterances.

The appellant appealed her conviction for the importation of cocaine, challenging the voluntariness of a video statement given to an RCMP officer.

She argued the statement was made under oppressive circumstances and in exchange for an improper inducement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's determination that the statement was voluntary.

The court upheld the trial judge's assessment of the officers' evidence, concluding there was no evidence of oppressive conditions or improper promises that would vitiate voluntariness.

The accused, Tuan Bui, applied for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 20 months and 14 days (622 days), exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court found a significant, unexplained 15-month delay in disclosure by the Crown, which was not excused by the COVID-19 pandemic or the alleged complexity of the case.

The court also determined that periods of defence unavailability did not cause the delay.

Consequently, the charges against the accused were stayed.

The Crown applied for certiorari to quash a preliminary inquiry judge's order discharging the accused on charges of possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused was a passenger in a vehicle where a bag containing two kilograms of methamphetamine was found.

The reviewing court held that the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error by weighing competing inferences rather than drawing the inference most favourable to the Crown regarding joint possession, and by failing to consider the whole of the circumstantial evidence.

The application was granted, the discharge quashed, and mandamus issued directing committal for trial.

The accused was arrested for robbery and break and enter, and a search of her satchel revealed fentanyl and cocaine.

She brought a Charter motion seeking a stay of proceedings under section 7 due to the police's failure to preserve video footage from her apartment building, and exclusion of the drugs under section 8 due to the seizure of her underwire bra during a strip search.

The court found no section 7 breach, as the failure to preserve the video did not amount to unacceptable negligence.

The court found a section 8 breach regarding the seizure of the bra, noting the police policy of removing underwire bras without providing a replacement was unreasonable and discriminatory.

However, applying the Grant framework under section 24(2), the court declined to exclude the narcotics, emphasizing the seriousness of the drug trafficking charges and society's interest in an adjudication on the merits.

The application was dismissed.