Graham Reynolds

The appellant challenged convictions entered following a nighttime search of his apartment under a warrant obtained on the basis of a confidential informant's tip about stolen property.

The court held that the information to obtain the warrant misleadingly described the informant as reliable, included another person's more serious criminal record, failed to address the informant's own criminal record properly, and did not justify nighttime execution.

Applying the totality of the circumstances analysis for informer-based warrants and the s. 24(2) exclusion framework, the court found the warrant invalid and the search unconstitutional under s. 8 of the Charter.

Given the flagrantly careless police conduct and the seriousness of an unjustified nighttime home intrusion, the seized drugs, weapons, and ring were excluded.

The appeal was allowed and an acquittal entered.

The appellant appealed jury convictions for importing cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and also appealed a five-year penitentiary sentence.

He argued errors in the restriction of cross-examination on voluntariness, Crown cross-examination concerning omissions in his statement, jury instructions regarding an admitted lie to police, and the denial of a Corbett application.

The court held that the Corbett ruling disclosed no error in principle and that, even assuming error on the remaining grounds, no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred given the strength of the circumstantial case and the improbability of the defence evidence.

The conviction appeal and sentence appeal were both dismissed.

The appellant challenged convictions arising from a package containing narcotics delivered to her address.

The Court of Appeal held the suspicious circumstances relied on by the Crown were insufficient to support the inference, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant knew of the narcotics or was wilfully blind to their presence.

The evidentiary foundation for the trial judge's inferences was inadequate.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and verdicts of acquittal were entered.