Erryl Taggart

The offender pled guilty to conspiracy to export cannabis, possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possessing proceeds of crime, and breaching a weapons prohibition order.

During his arrest, police used excessive force by unjustifiably tasering him, resulting in a section 7 Charter breach.

The Crown sought a 5-year sentence, while the offender sought a conditional sentence.

The court weighed the gravity of the offences, including the large quantities of drugs and sophisticated conspiracy, against mitigating factors such as the guilty pleas, house arrest bail, and the Charter breach.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4 years imprisonment.

The applicant sought a review of his detention order on charges including possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the proposal of new, closer sureties and the resolution of numerous outstanding breach charges.

Applying the principles from R. v. Zora, the court considered the applicant's history of bail breaches in the context of his drug addiction.

The court concluded that a strict house arrest plan with electronic monitoring and substantial sureties adequately addressed the secondary and tertiary grounds, and granted the applicant's release.

The applicant, charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, brought pre-trial motions seeking the exclusion of evidence discovered during a vehicle search and utterances made to police.

The applicant alleged violations of her rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter, as well as racial profiling and involuntary statements.

The court found the utterances were voluntary and dismissed the racial profiling claim.

While the court found a minor s. 10(b) breach due to a six-minute delay in providing the right to counsel, it held the initial detention was authorized under the Highway Traffic Act and the subsequent search of the vehicle and purse was authorized under the Liquor Licence Act.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.