Holly Akin

During a trial for drug importation, the Crown sought to admit statements made by the accused to police following his arrest.

The accused made an initial statement in a police cruiser and a subsequent video-recorded statement at the police station.

The court found the cruiser statement involuntary due to an incomplete record and inducements offered by the officer.

Applying the derived confessions rule, the court also excluded the subsequent video statement, finding it was causally, temporally, and contextually connected to the first tainted statement.

The accused were tried before a judge alone on charges arising from a large-scale cocaine importation scheme involving approximately 112 kilograms of cocaine shipped from Guyana to Canada in a sea container.

The Crown alleged conspiracy to import cocaine, importing cocaine, and possession for the purpose of trafficking, relying on surveillance, intercepted communications, controlled delivery evidence, and admissions.

The court found that two of the accused knowingly participated in a conspiracy to import cocaine and later exercised possession of the drugs for trafficking purposes, based largely on circumstantial evidence and intercepted communications demonstrating knowledge, control, and shared financial interest in the shipment.

However, the court found insufficient evidence that any accused actually committed the offence of importing under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act because their involvement occurred after the drugs entered Canada.

Two accused were acquitted entirely due to reasonable doubt regarding knowledge and participation.

The applicants sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter alleging a violation of their right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

They were charged with importing cocaine following their arrival at Toronto Pearson Airport with suitcases containing several kilograms of cocaine concealed in altered luggage.

Applying the analytical framework from Morin and related jurisprudence, the court assessed the total delay of approximately 30 months and deducted periods attributable to inherent intake, preparation, and scheduling requirements.

The remaining delay attributable to Crown and institutional causes was calculated at approximately 13 months, below the Morin guideline range of 14 to 18 months.

Although the applicants experienced stress and hardship while on bail, the court found the prejudice largely flowed from the charges themselves rather than delay.

Balancing all factors, including the seriousness of the allegations and societal interest in a trial on the merits, the court dismissed the s. 11(b) applications.

The accused was pulled over for using a cell phone while driving.

A search of the vehicle revealed cocaine, marijuana, and drug trafficking paraphernalia.

The accused claimed he was driving his mother's car in an emergency to help his injured wife and denied knowledge of the drugs.

The court rejected the accused's explanation as incredible, noting inconsistencies in his testimony and the fact that he was driving in the opposite direction of the alleged emergency.

The court inferred knowledge and control from the surrounding circumstances and found the accused guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking.