E. Marrocco

The accused was charged with possession of a restricted firearm, ammunition, and heroin for the purpose of trafficking after police executed a search warrant at his apartment based on information from a confidential informer.

The accused challenged the validity of the search warrant under s. 8 of the Charter, arguing the redacted Information to Obtain lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the warrant validly issued and holding that the evidence would not have been excluded under s. 24(2) regardless.

On the substantive charges, the court found the accused had knowledge and control of the lockbox containing the firearm and drugs, and convicted him of those offences.

The court also found the accused guilty of simple possession of a small amount of heroin found in the police cruiser after his arrest.

The accused was charged with two offences: transferring a restricted handgun without authorization contrary to s. 99(1) of the Criminal Code, and failing to report the loss or theft of the handgun contrary to s. 105(1) of the Criminal Code.

A restricted Glock 17 handgun registered to the accused was found in the possession of another individual during a search warrant execution.

The accused testified that the gun was stolen from his locked safe without his knowledge.

The Crown argued the accused unlawfully transferred the gun.

The court found that the accused's evidence, while not believed, raised a reasonable possibility that the gun was stolen rather than transferred, and accordingly dismissed both counts.

The defendant brought a Charter section 8 application to exclude evidence seized during a search of his residence.

The search was conducted pursuant to a Criminal Code search warrant based on information from two confidential informants.

The defendant challenged the adequacy of the judicial summary prepared under the Garofoli step six procedure, arguing it was insufficient to permit meaningful challenge to the warrant's validity.

The defendant also challenged whether reasonable and probable grounds existed for the warrant's issuance.

The court found the judicial summary adequate to allow the defendant to mount both facial and sub-facial challenges, and concluded that reasonable and probable grounds existed based on the totality of circumstances, including information from two corroborating confidential sources with track records of reliability, some first-hand observations, and police corroboration through database checks and surveillance.

The application was dismissed and the evidence ruled admissible.

The accused brought an application under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter to exclude a loaded handgun and other items seized during the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

The warrant was based on information from a confidential informant.

The accused sought leave to cross-examine the affiant and challenged the sufficiency of the redacted Information to Obtain (ITO).

The court dismissed the application to cross-examine the affiant, finding it would not assist in determining if the warrant could have issued.

The court held that the judicial summary provided sufficient information for the accused to make full answer and defence.

Ultimately, the court found no s. 8 breach, as the informant's tip was compelling, credible, and corroborated, providing reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.

In the alternative, the court held the evidence would be admissible under s. 24(2).

The accused was charged with conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, trafficking, and possession for the purpose of trafficking after acting as a courier to transport half a kilogram of cocaine from Toronto to Ottawa.

The Crown relied on intercepted communications and circumstantial evidence to prove the accused's knowledge.

The court found that the accused was wilfully blind to the fact that he was transporting a controlled substance, given the suspicious circumstances, urgency, and use of guarded language.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.