H. Pringle

The accused brought a pre‑trial application seeking exclusion of a police interview statement on the basis that their right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter was breached.

The detainee repeatedly requested to speak with a specific lawyer, but police made limited efforts to contact that lawyer and suggested duty counsel after learning the requested lawyer practised civil litigation.

The court held that police failed to diligently facilitate the accused’s right to counsel of choice and did not provide the required explanation that questioning would be delayed until a reasonable opportunity to consult that lawyer had occurred.

Applying the test in Grant, the court found the breach serious and potentially impactful on the accused’s decision to speak.

The statement was excluded under s. 24(2), although the court held that the statement would otherwise have been voluntary under the confessions rule.

Four accused were charged with possession of cannabis resin for the purpose of trafficking after police intercepted shipping containers from Pakistan containing chromium ore concealing approximately 4.6 metric tons of cannabis resin.

Police removed the drugs and conducted a controlled delivery of a sample to a Toronto warehouse, where the accused were arrested after entering the premises.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including surveillance, fingerprint evidence, and the accused’s association with the shipment and each other.

The court held that the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that any accused had knowledge or control of the hidden drugs.

Alternative inferences consistent with innocence remained available, including the possibility that the accused were unwitting participants in the shipment’s handling.