Geoffrey Roy

Yolanda Meecham sought to exclude evidence seized under a search warrant, arguing a violation of her s. 8 Charter rights due to insufficient grounds in the Information to Obtain (ITO).

The court applied the R. v. Garofoli "step six" procedure for redacted ITOs and the R. v. Debot "three Cs" criteria (credibility, compelling, corroboration) for confidential informant information.

Despite acknowledging the ITO's poor drafting and inaccuracies, including a withdrawn charge, the court found that, after excisions and amplification, the ITO met the low threshold for reasonable and probable grounds to issue the warrant.

The application was dismissed.

The defendants brought applications to exclude evidence obtained during a drug trafficking investigation, alleging Charter violations under sections 8 and 24(2).

The Crown charged both defendants with conspiracy to commit robbery and various firearms and drug offences.

The defendants challenged: (1) police observations made in a condominium hallway on February 22, 2016; (2) the search of a residence on June 9, 2016; and (3) the search of a vehicle incident to arrest.

The court rejected all applications, finding that the police conduct was lawful and that the defendants' reasonable expectations of privacy were not violated.

The accused was charged with trafficking cocaine, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

Following a police surveillance operation, the accused was observed meeting with a known drug purchaser at a mall, exchanging a bag containing drugs for a bag containing over $42,000 in cash.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts, concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that he had knowledge of the drugs and the proceeds of crime, and alternatively was willfully blind.

The court also admitted intercepted communications under the co-conspirator's exception to the hearsay rule.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 15 months' imprisonment plus two years' probation for possession of 28 grams of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The appellant had pled guilty and was admitted to the Halton Drug Treatment Court program but was expelled after testing positive for cocaine on three occasions and lying about the circumstances of his relapse.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by treating the appellant's failure to fully engage in the program and his dishonesty as aggravating factors.

The court allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to nine months' imprisonment, maintaining the probation and section 109 order.

During a trial for conspiracy to traffic in controlled substances, the Crown sought to introduce ten recorded conversations obtained via a room probe.

The accused opposed the admission of the evidence, arguing the audio quality was too poor to be reliable.

Following a voir dire, the court found that eight of the recordings were largely inaudible and lacked sufficient context to permit a fair and reliable assessment of their substance.

Portions of two recordings were found to be sufficiently clear to meet the threshold test for admissibility, subject to the Crown satisfying the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule at trial.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple drug trafficking charges, including the sale of a half kilogram of heroin to an undercover police officer.

He subsequently brought an application to stay the proceedings on the basis of entrapment, arguing that a police agent induced him to sell the drugs in exchange for documents related to a civil lawsuit.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding that he had a personal financial stake in the transactions and was not induced by the offer of documents.

The entrapment application was dismissed.

The offender was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to export ecstasy and marihuana, possession of proceeds of crime, and possession of cocaine and ecstasy for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a penitentiary term of 5 to 6.5 years, while the defence sought a conditional sentence, emphasizing the offender's recent motherhood and ADHD diagnosis.

The court found that while the offender's role was integral, she was not a principal in the operation.

Balancing the gravity of the offences with her personal circumstances, the court imposed a total penitentiary sentence of 30 months.

During a trial involving wiretap evidence, the accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings after all evidence had been called and closing addresses completed.

The accused alleged that the Crown failed to disclose contact information and particulars regarding two individuals, which impaired his ability to make full answer and defence.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the accused failed to pursue disclosure diligently, did not establish prejudice, and that a stay of proceedings is a remedy of last resort not justified in these circumstances.

The offender was convicted of multiple serious drug offences, including importing cocaine and exporting ecstasy, as well as firearms offences.

At sentencing, the defence argued that the offender's difficult youth in a crime-ridden neighbourhood as an African Canadian should mitigate his sentence, analogous to the Gladue principles for Aboriginal offenders.

The court rejected this argument, finding no evidentiary link between his early childhood and his commercial drug enterprise at age 40.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global sentence of 15 years, reduced by 6 years for pre-trial custody.