Howard Piafsky

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on drug production and trafficking charges.

The trial judge had excluded evidence found during a search incident to arrest and subsequent condominium searches, finding the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, thereby violating the accused's Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by failing to assess the objective reasonableness of the grounds for arrest through the lens of an experienced police officer.

When viewed from that perspective, the totality of the evidence, including extensive surveillance, provided reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellants, two commercial truck drivers, were convicted of importing $3.5 million of cocaine after the drugs were found hidden in their trailer at the border.

They appealed their convictions, arguing they were 'blind couriers' and the trial judge erred in his credibility assessments, particularly regarding their knowledge of English and a purported alibi.

The Court of Appeal (majority) dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the trial judge's factual conclusions were supported by the evidence.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeals, reducing the sentences from 16 and 14 years to 12 and 10 years, as the original sentences were outside the range for first-time couriers.

The appellant appealed convictions for importing opium and possession of opium for the purpose of trafficking arising from a shipment of hydraulic jacks containing concealed narcotics.

The court accepted the respondent’s concession that the trial judge erred by admitting impermissible police opinion evidence and by failing to provide an adequate circumstantial evidence instruction on the standard of proof.

The court also held that additional police opinion evidence about the appellant’s interview demeanour was irrelevant and highly prejudicial.

Although the verdict was not unreasonable on the evidentiary record, the cumulative unfairness required the convictions to be set aside and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for producing and possessing marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and theft of electricity, as well as his nine-month sentence.

He argued the verdict was unreasonable and the trial judge improperly drew a negative inference from his failure to testify.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the circumstantial evidence supported the verdict and the trial judge properly applied the law regarding the accused's silence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the nine-month term was fit given the scale of the operation and the need for deterrence.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant lacked sufficient reliable information from confidential informants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if some information was excised, the ITO as a whole provided a sufficient basis for the warrant to issue due to independent corroboration of the informants' tips regarding the location and the individuals involved in drug trafficking.

As the warrant was valid, the court did not need to address the appellant's arguments under sections 8 and 24(2) of the Charter.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on a charge of importing cocaine.

The respondent relied on the defence of duress, claiming he was forced at gunpoint in Jamaica to swallow cocaine pellets.

The Crown argued the trial judge erred in his responses to jury questions regarding the 'reasonable person' standard and the 'safe avenue of escape' element of duress.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge's examples were extreme and his language could have been better, the jury would not have been confused about the essential legal standards.

The appellant, who acted as a pilot in a pre-existing scheme to import a very large quantity of cocaine and hashish, appealed his sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentence was justified by the need for deterrence and denunciation given the nature of the scheme and the amounts involved.

The court also held that the absence of evidence of extra monetary gain did not render the sentence an error in principle, as the sentence was imposed due to the extraordinary damage caused by the drugs.