Harpreet Saini

The accused brought a motion to exclude evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant at his residence in a cocaine trafficking investigation.

The defence argued the Information to Obtain contained misleading information and failed to establish a sufficient nexus between the alleged drug trafficking activities and the residence searched.

The court found that surveillance, intercepted communications, and investigative observations provided a reasonable basis to believe evidence of drug trafficking would be located at the residence.

The court further held that even if a Charter breach had occurred, the evidence would have been admitted under the s. 24(2) analysis.

The motion to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused was found guilty of the attempted murder of his former wife, whom he stabbed multiple times, as well as assaults against her and their daughter, and breaching his bail conditions.

The court found the attack was unprovoked and involved a serious breach of trust, though it was not planned and deliberate.

The court held that section 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional, allowing for enhanced pre-sentence custody credit.

The accused was sentenced to a total of 11 years and 31 days, reduced to 7 years, 5 months, and 6 days on the main count after applying a 1.5:1 credit for pre-trial custody.

The defendant brought a Charter application challenging the admissibility of statements made during police interrogation.

The defendant claimed that the police violated his right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter by failing to provide a reasonable opportunity to contact his lawyer of choice before questioning him.

The Crown argued there was no breach or, alternatively, that any breach should not result in exclusion of evidence.

The court found that the police failed to afford a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel of choice by placing only a single phone call and waiting less than half an hour on a Saturday night.

The court further found that any purported waiver of the right to counsel was invalid because the defendant was not provided with the required Prosper warning.

The court excluded the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The Crown applied for a ruling that several statements made by the accused during police interrogation were voluntary and admissible.

The accused sought a stay of proceedings under the Charter, alleging violations of ss. 7, 8, and 9, including unlawful arrest, an unjustified strip search, and failure to bring him before a justice within 24 hours contrary to s. 503 of the Criminal Code.

The court held the arrest was supported by reasonable and probable grounds and the strip search was justified as incident to custody and conducted reasonably.

Although the police breached s. 503 and the accused’s s. 9 Charter rights by delaying his appearance before a justice, the court found no prejudice warranting a stay.

All statements were admitted as voluntary except for a late oral statement made at 5 p.m., which was excluded.

Sentencing following a jury conviction for importing heroin into Canada and possessing heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The offences involved approximately 398 grams of heroin imported through a parcel shipment and an additional quantity of heroin located at the offender’s residence.

The court considered aggravating factors including the quantity and purity of the drug, the offender’s role as an organizer rather than a courier, and the sophistication of the importation scheme.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s lack of criminal record, family circumstances, and employment history.

Applying the proportionality principle, the court imposed consecutive sentences totalling twelve years’ imprisonment with credit for pre-trial custody, along with DNA and weapons prohibition orders.

The accused brought a motion to exclude evidence obtained through a search warrant, alleging the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained misleading statements suggesting prior robbery convictions that had in fact been stayed.

The court agreed the ITO included inaccurate and misleading information and held that those portions should be excised.

However, applying the Garofoli review standard and considering the totality of the remaining evidence—including surveillance, witness descriptions, and links between the suspect and seized items—the court concluded there remained sufficient grounds that could have justified issuance of the warrant.

In the alternative, the court held that even if a Charter breach occurred, admission of the evidence was warranted under s. 24(2) given the seriousness of the alleged armed robberies and society’s interest in adjudicating the matter on its merits.

The motion to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The Crown brought two applications to admit similar fact evidence in a prosecution for multiple commercial break and enter offences.

The first application sought admission of the accused’s prior convictions for numerous break and enters committed several years earlier.

The second sought to permit count‑to‑count similar fact reasoning among the charged offences.

The court held that the alleged similarities—such as targeting commercial food premises, nighttime entries, use of dark clothing, and removal of door glass—were generic and did not amount to a distinctive signature or sufficiently striking pattern.

The Crown also failed to establish a sufficient evidentiary link connecting the accused to the charged offences.

Both applications were therefore dismissed.