J. Arvisu

This ruling addresses a motion by defence counsel to withdraw from a criminal case after the accused, Juan Chua, pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking but subsequently failed to appear for sentencing.

The Crown took no position on the motion.

The court, applying the discretionary factors for counsel withdrawal outlined in *Cunningham v. Lilles*, denied the motion.

The judge emphasized that the accused was at a crucial stage of the proceedings (sentencing for a serious offence), counsel still held valid instructions, and denying withdrawal was in the best interest of the administration of justice, particularly given the potential for an in absentia sentencing and a lengthy custodial sentence without representation.

The accused brought a Charter application under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to quash a search warrant and exclude evidence.

The search warrant was obtained to search a residence for crystal methamphetamine based on information from a confidential informant.

The accused challenged both the validity of the warrant and the particularity of the offence listed in Appendix B (which listed powder cocaine instead of crystal methamphetamine).

The court dismissed the application, finding that the issuing justice had sufficient grounds to issue the warrant based on the credible, compelling, and corroborated information from the confidential informant, and that the discrepancy in Appendix B was not a fatal defect.