Helena Solin

The applicant sought to exclude evidence (a loaded handgun, ammunition, and illegal drugs) found during a vehicle search incident to arrest and a subsequent strip search at the police station, alleging violations of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed the application, finding both the vehicle search (justified as incident to arrest and an inventory search) and the strip search (justified as incident to arrest and for custodial safety) were lawful.

The court also upheld the validity of the telewarrants used for a later search of the vehicle, finding the grounds for their issuance and the resort to the telewarrant process were reasonable.

The offender was convicted by a jury of two counts of trafficking in cocaine and two counts of possession of property derived from crime.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day, while the defence sought a 90-day intermittent sentence.

The court considered the aggravating factor that the offender was a supplier, balanced against mitigating factors including his employment, family support, lack of prior drug record, and need for ongoing physiotherapy due to a severe hit-and-run accident.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8 months imprisonment.

The accused, charged with drug trafficking, brought a pre-trial application seeking disclosure of confidential informant handler notes and files to prepare for a Garofoli application.

The Crown resisted, arguing the materials were not part of the investigative file and could identify the informants.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the requested materials are not routinely disclosed as part of the investigative file and the accused failed to meet the threshold showing of relevance required to compel their disclosure.

Talel Khan was charged with possession of fentanyl for trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime.

The trial involved applications regarding the voluntariness of Khan's statement to police and alleged breaches of his s. 10(b) Charter rights (right to counsel).

The court found Khan's statement voluntary but his s. 10(b) rights were violated due to delayed access to counsel and police eliciting a statement after he requested a lawyer.

The elicited statement was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, but physical evidence (fentanyl, scale, money) was admitted.

Ultimately, the court found the Crown failed to prove constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt, as a reasonable alternative inference was that Khan's common-law spouse was in sole possession.

Khan was found not guilty on both counts.

The accused, George Katsoulis, brought applications at the outset of his trial to cross-examine the deponent of an Information to Obtain (ITO), reveal redacted portions of the ITO (Garofoli application), exclude evidence obtained from searches under sections 8 and 24(2) of the Charter, and appoint amicus curiae.

The applications stemmed from a search warrant obtained based on an anonymous Crime Stoppers tip and subsequent police surveillance for drug trafficking.

The court declined to order cross-examination, refused to appoint amicus curiae, and upheld the search warrant, finding that the ITO provided a sufficient basis for reasonable and probable grounds, despite minor discrepancies and the anonymous nature of the initial tip.

The court emphasized a holistic and contextual assessment of the ITO.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine and hydromorphone found in a safe in the basement room he had rented.

The trial judge found that the appellant had knowledge of and control over the drugs based on circumstantial evidence, including that the appellant was the last and only person to occupy the area where the drugs were found, the landlord's credible testimony that no one else had entered the home during the relevant period, and the discovery of a key to the safe on the appellant's person.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge did not err in his approach to circumstantial evidence and that his conclusion was logically based on the evidence and free of error.