3 total
The court stayed the proceedings due to unreasonable delay in disclosing search warrant materials.
The accused were charged with possession of cannabis marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime following execution of a search warrant.
Both accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on an alleged violation of their section 11(b) Charter rights (right to trial within a reasonable time).
The total delay from commencement of proceedings to trial was 19 months and 22 days.
The court found that approximately 16 months of delay was attributable to state conduct, including Crown delays in vetting the Information to Obtain and significant institutional delays in scheduling.
The court found that the delay exceeded the 8-10 month guideline for provincial court trials and that the accused suffered some prejudice from the extended delay.
The court granted the stay of proceedings.
Drug trafficker sentenced to three years with forfeiture of condominium interest.
Sentencing following guilty pleas to multiple offences including possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime over $5,000, and possession of a counterfeit mark.
Police surveillance and search warrants uncovered more than half a kilogram of cocaine, trafficking paraphernalia, and substantial cash proceeds, demonstrating a commercial drug trafficking operation.
The court considered significant aggravating factors including the large quantity of drugs and the commission of further trafficking-related offences while on bail.
Strong mitigating factors included exceptional post‑offence rehabilitation, academic achievement, and strict bail conditions amounting to lengthy house arrest.
A global sentence of three years’ imprisonment was imposed with substantial credit for pre‑trial custody and restrictive bail conditions, resulting in 14 months additional custody.
The offender’s 50% interest in a condominium used in relation to the drug offence was forfeited as offence‑related property, while the Crown’s request for a fine in lieu of forfeiture for funds previously released for legal fees was denied.
Unsigned wiretap affidavit irregularities did not invalidate authorization or require evidence exclusion.
The applicants sought exclusion of wiretap evidence under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the basis that Part VI authorizations were obtained using an unsigned and improperly commissioned affidavit, and allegedly lacked investigative necessity and reasonable grounds.
The court heard viva voce evidence from the affiant officer and the commissioner of oaths regarding irregularities in the affidavit commissioning process.
The court found the deficiencies were mechanical errors made in good faith and concluded the affidavit evidence had nevertheless been sworn and was trustworthy.
Applying the principles governing review of wiretap authorizations, the court held the record demonstrated investigative necessity and reasonable and probable grounds.
The motions to exclude the intercepted communications were dismissed.
