George Lennox

The applicant, Aaron Stewart, brought a motion challenging the facial validity of a search warrant for his residence at 270 Church Street, Belleville, arguing it was deficient for failing to specify the unit to be searched in a multi-unit dwelling.

Police obtained the warrant believing it was a single dwelling, but discovered it contained two Airbnb units upon execution.

They confined their search to the applicant's unit (Unit A) and found drugs and currency.

The court found no Section 8 Charter breach, distinguishing the case from R. v. Ting and aligning it with R. v. Iraheta, as the police acted reasonably and confined their search to the target's unit.

Alternatively, if a breach occurred, the evidence would be admissible under Section 24(2) of the Charter, considering the seriousness of the conduct, impact on the accused, and society's interest in a trial on the merits.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The applicant brought a pre-trial motion alleging violations of his Charter rights under ss. 8 and 10(b) and seeking the exclusion of cocaine and cash seized from his residence.

The court found a minor s. 10(b) breach due to a brief delay in advising the applicant of his right to counsel upon arrest.

However, the court dismissed the s. 8 claims, finding that exigent circumstances justified the initial warrantless entry to freeze the residence, and that the subsequent search warrant was valid despite errors in the Information to Obtain.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and dismissed the application to exclude the evidence.

The defendant, Damen Smith, faced charges including drug trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and firearm offences.

The charges stemmed from a police surveillance operation, a vehicle takedown, and subsequent searches of a Nissan Rogue and an apartment.

The court relied heavily on wiretap intercepts and circumstantial evidence.

The defendant was found guilty of drug trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime related to the vehicle.

However, the court found reasonable doubt regarding the firearm charges due to poor police handling of evidence and the presence of other occupants, and also found reasonable doubt for the drug and proceeds charges related to the apartment due to insufficient evidence of the defendant's primary residence and the presence of another individual.

The defendant, Shamal Searchwell-Beals, subpoenaed D.C. Graham for a Charter application.

D.C. Graham sought to be excused from testifying under s. 700(2) of the Criminal Code due to medical grounds (PTSD).

The court applied a modified four-part test from R. v. N.S., considering whether the witness's health would be seriously jeopardized, if excusing them would risk trial fairness, if accommodation was possible, and if salutary effects of testifying outweighed deleterious effects.

The court found D.C. Graham's health would be seriously jeopardized, excusing him would risk trial fairness for the defendant, but no effective accommodation was possible.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the salutary effects of compelling testimony did not outweigh the deleterious effects on the witness's health, especially given the potential unreliability of his testimony and the existence of alternative evidence.

D.C. Graham was excused from testifying.

The offender was convicted of trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine.

He acted as upper management in a commercial cocaine trafficking conspiracy that purchased cocaine at the kilogram level and sold it at the quarter-kilogram level and below.

The Crown sought 4-5 years imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court found that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the scale of the operation and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The offender was sentenced to 3 years in the penitentiary for conspiracy and 2.5 years concurrent for trafficking.

The accused was charged with trafficking cocaine and conspiracy to traffic cocaine.

The Crown's case relied on intercepted communications, police surveillance, two cocaine seizures, and expert evidence on drug terminology.

The court found that the intercepted communications, which heavily featured drug slang, established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was part of an ongoing buy-sell conspiracy to traffic cocaine from the Greater Toronto Area to Sudbury.

The accused was convicted on both counts.

The applicants, charged with firearms offences, brought a pre-trial motion alleging that the police violated their s. 8 Charter rights during the execution of a search warrant at their residence.

The police had a valid warrant for a single-family dwelling targeting another individual, but upon entry, discovered two separate residential units (main floor and basement).

The applicants resided in the basement unit.

The police proceeded to search the entire house, including the basement, where they found firearms and ammunition.

The court held that the search of the basement unit was reasonable and did not violate s. 8, given the target's access to common areas, his absence during the search, and the discovery of a handgun magazine in plain view in the basement.

The motion was dismissed.

The Crown applied under s. 521 of the Criminal Code to review and set aside a judicial interim release order granted to the accused, who faced multiple firearms trafficking charges connected to a large gang investigation.

The Crown argued that a factual error at the original bail hearing and inadequate reasons required the order to be vacated and replaced with detention.

The court found the justice of the peace’s reasons inadequate under R. v. Sheppard and conducted a bail hearing de novo.

After considering the evidence, including the accused’s compliance with strict supervision and house arrest conditions and the largely circumstantial nature of the Crown’s case, the court concluded detention was not justified under the secondary or tertiary grounds.

The Crown’s application was dismissed and the accused’s release order continued.

The accused, facing numerous serious charges including conspiracy to commit murder, drug trafficking, and firearms offences arising from a gang investigation, applied for judicial interim release.

The court found the proposed release plan and sureties inadequate to address the secondary ground of public safety.

The court also found detention justified on the tertiary ground to maintain confidence in the administration of justice given the strength of the Crown's case and the gravity of the offences.

The application for bail was dismissed.

The offender was sentenced after conviction for importing cocaine into Canada and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Police surveillance and intercepted communications established that the offender coordinated with another individual to import approximately 600 grams of cocaine from Panama for distribution.

The court considered the sentencing ranges established in appellate authorities for cocaine importation and trafficking, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence.

Although the offender expressed remorse and had some rehabilitative prospects, aggravating factors included a prior drug conviction, commission of the offence while on probation, and participation for financial gain.

The court imposed concurrent penitentiary sentences of five years for each offence, reduced to 4 years and 6 months after credit for pre‑trial custody and restrictive bail conditions, together with ancillary orders.

The accused was charged with importation of cocaine into Canada and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown relied primarily on intercepted telephone communications, surveillance evidence, and seizure of drug packaging and cocaine to establish participation in a common criminal design to import cocaine from Panama.

The defence argued that the Crown failed to prove the identity of the accused’s voice in the intercepted calls and failed to prove knowledge of the package contents.

The court accepted voice identification evidence, found the co‑conspirators’ exception to the hearsay rule applied, and concluded that the intercepted calls, surveillance observations, and surrounding circumstantial evidence established the accused’s knowledge and participation.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly participated in the importation and trafficking scheme.