E. Mastrorillo

Jerome Bosnjak was found guilty of multiple counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking in Schedule I drugs (crystal methamphetamine, cocaine, Ketamine, GHB) and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court imposed a global sentence of four years' incarceration, less pre-sentence custody, for the drug trafficking offences, with a concurrent 30-day sentence for proceeds of crime.

Aggravating factors included the commercial nature of the drug operation, the offender's absconding during trial, and a complete lack of remorse.

Mitigating factors were few, primarily the agreement to an Agreed Statement of Facts.

Ancillary orders included a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA sample order, and forfeiture of seized cash and drug paraphernalia.

The applicant, Andrew Rocha, sought a stay of proceedings for charges of possession of cocaine for trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, alleging police stole money and drugs during a search warrant execution, violating his s. 7 Charter rights.

The court found approximately $6000 of seized cash was missing and inferred it was taken by police officers involved in the investigation.

This misconduct was deemed an abuse of state power and a breach of s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Given the egregious nature of the police misconduct and the lack of an adequate alternative remedy, the court granted a stay of proceedings to dissociate the justice system from the impugned conduct, despite the strong societal interest in a trial on the merits.

The accused, Faysal Adow, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence (drugs) seized following his arrest for impaired care and control and subsequent arrest for possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The court found that the initial arrest for impaired care and control was unlawful due to a lack of reasonable and probable grounds.

Consequently, the subsequent search of the vehicle, which led to the discovery of drugs, was an unreasonable search in violation of section 8 of the Charter.

The court also found violations of section 10(b) of the Charter for delayed provision of rights to counsel.

Applying the s. 24(2) analysis, the court determined that the seriousness of the state conduct and the impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests outweighed society's interest in the adjudication on the merits, leading to the exclusion of the evidence and a finding of not guilty on all counts.