Erryl Jane Conover Taggart

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal of two accused on charges of trafficking in methamphetamine and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The court applied the test for committal in circumstantial evidence cases, examining whether a properly instructed jury could reasonably draw the necessary inferences to establish the essential elements of the offences.

The court found insufficient evidence to support the inferences required for conviction.

Specifically, the court found that a reasonable jury could not infer a hand-to-hand drug transaction occurred, could not establish that both accused occupied the residence where drugs were found, and could not infer knowledge and control over the drugs.

Both accused were discharged on all counts.

Following a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to commit the accused to stand trial for possession of cocaine, ketamine, and oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime over $5000.

The defence conceded there was sufficient evidence for simple possession but argued the lack of expert evidence regarding drug quantities precluded committal for trafficking.

The court held that a properly instructed jury could reasonably infer the purpose of trafficking from the circumstantial evidence, including the presence of a digital scale, baggies, large amounts of hidden cash, and police observations of a suspected drug transaction.

The accused was committed to stand trial on all counts.

The accused, Andre Denis, was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine.

The case involved a challenge to the lawfulness of his arrest and subsequent search of his vehicle, leading to the discovery of drugs.

The court found that while the initial arrest for failing to remain and breach of bail was lawful, the subsequent search of a satchel in the car for identification was not objectively reasonable and violated the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

Furthermore, the officer lacked reasonable grounds to conduct a more intrusive search for drugs based on the items found.

The court also found a s. 10(b) Charter violation because the accused was not re-advised of his right to counsel after new, more serious drug charges arose.

Applying the R. v. Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court determined that the seriousness of the police misconduct and the significant impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests outweighed society's interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits.

Consequently, the evidence (cocaine) was excluded, and the accused was found not guilty.

The defendant, charged with serious drug offences, brought an application seeking a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence based on allegations that police treatment as a confidential informant constituted an abuse of process.

The defendant argued that police broke their promise to provide consideration in exchange for information and failed to keep proper records of interactions.

The court found that the police officer formed a genuine belief that the information provided was not useful and therefore did not break any promise.

The court also found that the initial exploratory interaction did not require adherence to full confidential informant procedures and that the officer's failure to retain notes was not abusive given the defendant's concerns about recordings.

The application was dismissed.