Felice Ferri

The applicant was arrested for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police observed him engaging in suspected hand-to-hand drug transactions from his rental vehicle.

A subsequent warrantless search of the vehicle at the police station yielded 5.5 grams of crack cocaine.

The applicant brought a Charter motion to exclude the evidence, alleging breaches of his s. 8 and s. 9 rights.

The court dismissed the application, finding the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and that the search was a lawful search incident to arrest.

The court further noted that even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The applicant was arrested for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police observed him engaging in suspected hand-to-hand drug transactions from his rental vehicle.

Following his arrest, police towed the vehicle to the station and conducted a warrantless search, discovering 5.5 grams of crack cocaine hidden in the visor.

The applicant brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his s. 8 and s. 9 rights, arguing the police lacked reasonable grounds for arrest and that the search was unlawful.

The court dismissed the application, finding the officers had objectively reasonable grounds for the arrest based on their observations and experience, and that the subsequent vehicle search was a lawful search incident to arrest.

The applicant corporation sought relief under s. 24(1) of the Charter for the return of goods seized by the Canada Border Services Agency during attempted importation.

The Crown argued the matter should be addressed in the Federal Court because it required interpretation of the Customs Act.

The court held that both the Superior Court and Federal Court have concurrent jurisdiction over such claims but that where a federal statute establishes a comprehensive review scheme, the provincial court should decline jurisdiction.

Given the statutory review process under the Customs Act and the Federal Court’s expertise in customs matters, the court concluded the Federal Court was the preferable forum.

The application was stayed.

In a multi‑accused murder trial, the Crown sought to introduce a PowerPoint presentation prepared by an Ontario Provincial Police analyst summarizing extensive cell phone records already entered in evidence.

Defence counsel objected, arguing the presentation was redundant, prejudicial, and effectively allowed the Crown to present its theory of the case twice.

The court held that the PowerPoint itself was not evidence but an illustrative aid reorganizing evidence already admitted.

Although useful and reliable, its probative value was outweighed by prejudice arising from duplication, significant trial time, and the unfair advantage of allowing the Crown to present its theory through a witness before closing submissions.

The court excluded the presentation from evidence but permitted the Crown to use it in closing argument and ordered the Crown to disclose the presentation to defence counsel in editable PowerPoint format.

In a multi‑accused murder trial arising from a home invasion in which one victim was killed and another survived, a co‑accused sought to exclude a text message sent on the day of the offence stating “To after work ok will be game time.” The moving party argued the text was an ambiguous fragment whose meaning could only be determined through speculation and should therefore be excluded under the probative value versus prejudicial effect analysis.

The court distinguished authorities dealing with incomplete overheard utterances, finding the text was a stand‑alone statement capable of interpretation when viewed alongside earlier communications among the accused.

When considered in context with prior text exchanges suggesting planning activity, the message was capable of supporting an inference relevant to the identity and involvement of the accused.

The court held the text possessed probative value that outweighed any prejudicial effect and declined to exclude it.

The offender pleaded guilty to production of marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking following the discovery of a large outdoor grow operation containing nearly 6000 plants.

The court considered the offender’s role as a gardener, absence of a prior criminal record, guilty plea, and compliance with bail conditions over several years.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of approximately fourteen and a half months, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the scale of the operation.

The court accepted that imprisonment was required but considered collateral immigration consequences, which could lead to removal from Canada if the sentence exceeded six months on a count.

A global custodial sentence structured to remain within an appropriate sentencing range while recognizing those collateral consequences was imposed.